Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill (by Order),

London Electric Railway Companies (Coordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the clock.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Sutton District Waterworks Bill [Lords], Read a Second time.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 82, 211, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill upon Thursday."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DUNDEE, BROUGHTY FERRY, AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Traction," presented by Mr. Secretary Adamson; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Corporation," presented by Mr. Secretary Adamson: read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee,
That, in the case of the Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Resolution agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

TRIAL, MEERUT.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to take any steps to secure that the 31 Labour and Youth Movement officials now on trial at Meerut shall be transferred to a court where they can be tried by jury?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): No, Sir. The case has passed into the hands of the courts, and I am not prepared to interfere.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Was it not an executive decision to hold the trial at Meerut, and is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to reverse a decision made before his accession to office?

Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add to the answer, because, as the case has passed into the hands of the courts, I am not prepared to interfere.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case is causing considerable ill-will in India against this country, and is he not prepared to do anything in the matter to relieve the state of strain?

Mr. BENN: I can add nothing to the answer which I have given to my hon. Friend. The case is before the court, and I cannot interfere.

Sir FRANK NELSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the opinion that the hon. Member has just put forward, that this case—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

Major POLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what special arrangements have been made for the reporting of the proceedings of the Meerut trial for the Press; and why the Government of India has deputed the director of public information to Meerut for this purpose?

Mr. BENN: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press in India. I assume that the director of
public information will arrange for the grant of all possible facilities to the usual agencies and I have telegraphed to make sure that this is done.

Major POLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make sure that the reports of this trial are not circulated through India and over here at the expense of the Government of India, instead of in the usual way?

Mr. BENN: Inasmuch as the ordinary agencies will have the opportunity of making their own reports, I think that probably the case is met.

SANDHURST COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Major POLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the feeling concerning the question in India, he will consider the advisability of reversing the policy followed by the late Government in withholding from publication the report of the sub-committee of the Indian Sandhurst Committee?

Mr. BENN: Sir Andrew Skeen's Committee had this report before them and founded many of their conclusions on it, where necessary quoting it in extenso. My difficulty in consenting to publication is that it was understood by the witnesses that they were expressing personal and to some extent confidential views.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is there any evidence that as many as one in ten thousand of the population in India has ever heard of this report?

Mr. BENN: The report and the inquiry are both very important matters, and I cannot see any reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should show contempt of them.

Sir A. KNOX: But has one in ten thousand ever heard of it?

MR. P. C. GANGULY.

Major POLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India under which section of the Indian Penal Code or under what regulation or ordinance the order was issued restricting the movements of Mr. Pratul Chandra Ganguly, an ex-detenu, who was returned unopposed for Dacca in the recent elections to the Bengal Legislative Council?

Mr. BENN: I am informed by the Government of Bengal that there is no order in force restricting the movements of Mr. Pratul Chandra Ganguly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

INDIA.

Mr. AYLES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India what status is held by the Indian Princes or their representative on the League of Nations and the International Labour Office; whether all the Indian Princes and the Indian States are represented by such representative; by whom he is appointed; and whether all the Indian States and Indian Princes, or only the Princes and States represented, are bound by the conventions or agreements entered into by such representative at Geneva?

Mr. BENN: An Indian Prince who is included in the Indian delegation to the Assembly of the League represents India as a whole in exactly the same way as the other members of the delegation, and is appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Government of India. The question whether a convention or agreement which is accepted by the Indian delegation applies to the whole of India or only to British India depends entirely on its nature and terms and not on the way in which the delegation is composed.

Mr. AYLES: Do I understand that he represents the whole of the States ruled over by Princes, as well as British India?

Mr. BENN: He represents India, in as much as India is a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles.

BEITISH DELEGATION (SIR CECIL HURST).

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the legal adviser to the Foreign Office has been nominated for election as a Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice and that the election will take place during the sittings of the forthcoming League of Nations Assembly, it is proposed that the legal adviser should attend the assembly as a delegate and engage in possibly controversial business down to the day of the election?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Sir Cecil Hurst as legal adviser to the Foreign Office has been included in the delegation each year since the commencement of the League. He has been closely connected with some of the legal questions on this year's agenda and I considered it desirable that he should complete his work. I am aware of no grounds for the suggestion that Sir Cecil Hurst's nomination for election to the Permanent Court disqualifies him in any way for the exercise of his normal routine duties at the Assembly.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. MANDER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it will be the policy of the Government at the League of Nations Assembly in September to support any increase in the contribution payable by this country that may seem to be necessitated by the expanding work and increased responsibilities of the League of Nations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The contribution of His Majesty's Government is a fixed proportion of the total expenditure of the League. Any additional expenditure necessitated by the work of the League will be considered by His Majesty's Government having regard to the importance of the work to be undertaken.

Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to reverse the reactionary policy of the late Government in this matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Have all the other members of the League paid their proper quota towards these expenses?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think all the other members have paid their quota, except one, and I think that is China.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH WAR LOANS (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Commander SOUTHBY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will press upon the French Government the claims of those British subjects who subscribed to the four French War Loans issued between 1915 and 1918 to have their loans repaid in full, observing that these British bondholders came to the assistance of France at a critical time and would now appear to be penalised for so doing?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): At the moment I can only say that I will take any opportunity which presents itself of placing before the French Government the claim of the British bondholders for consideration.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I can add nothing, as I have said, to the reply already given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether this hardship to British nationals did not arise before the right hon. Gentleman took office, and what was done by his predecessor?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also point out that British nationals were urged to subscribe to these bonds by the British Government at the time?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am well aware of the facts stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SITUATION.

Mr. HARRIS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the present position in China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have been anxious to give the hon. Member as full information as possible, but as this would involve occupying the time of the House unduly at Question Time, I am arranging to have the statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps the item of major interest concerns the report that the Soviet Government have issued an ultimatum to the Chinese Government
arising out of the situation in Manchuria. On this matter I have no information except that which has appeared in the Press.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what troops we have at Shanghai or in other parts?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I shall have to include that in the long statement which I propose to circulate.

Sir STEWART SANDEMAN: As the Home Secretary has said that relations still exist with Russia, will the right hon. Gentleman appeal to the Soviet Republic to lay the Manchurian dispute before the League of Nations?

Mr. HENDERSON: I will consider that when I get some official information, but at present, as I have stated, I have nothing but what appeared in the Press.

Following is the statement:

During the month of May there was a serious invasion of the province of Kwangtung by Kwangsi forces. The invasion was repelled and Kwangtung troops advanced into Kwangsi. The Canton authorities claim that they have now captured Nanning, the capital of the province, and have broken the power of the Kwangsi faction.

The strained situation between Feng Yuhsiang and the National Government developed into a state of war towards the end of May, when Marshal Feng destroyed the railways giving access to his territory and the State Council issued a mandate ordering his subjugation and accusing him of receiving a monthly subsidy from the Soviet Government and of being in league with Communists.

The subsequent campaign involved very little actual fighting, Marshal Feng standing strictly on the defensive, while Yen-Hsi-shan, the Governor of Shansi, who has been ordered to assist in the attack on him, maintained an attitude of detachment. On 28th June, Marshal Chiang Kai-shek arrived in Peking, followed two days later by Yen-shan, Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang also arrived in Peking from Manchuria on 7th July. Both Chiang Kai-shek and Chang Hsueh-liang left Peking on 10th July, the former for Nanking and the latter for Mukden, and the position between Feng Yu-hsiang, Yen Hsi-shan and Chiang Kai-shek remains obscure.

His Majesty's Consul-General at Harbin reports that the Chinese authorities took over the Chinese Eastern Railway Telegraph Administration on 10th July. Various Russian institutions were closed on the same day by the police on account of their alleged propagandist activities. The Communist employés of the railway are being kept under strict surveillance; 35 of them were deported on 10th July, and, according to the Consul's information, a further batch, including the general and assistant managers, was to be deported on 11th July.

The general and assistant managers of the railway, and the Soviet heads of all the departments, have been dismissed and replaced by Chinese.

It is reported in the Press that the Soviet Government have now issued an ultimatum to the Chinese Government in consequence of these actions, but I have so far received no official confirmation of this report.

BRITISH INTERESTS (CONSUL, URGA).

Mr. ALLEN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the political importance of Outer Mongolia and the fact that Urga, the capital, is an important point on trans-Asian trade routes, His Majesty's Government will apply to the Chinese Government for permission to appoint a Consul to Urga?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am asking His Majesty's Minister at Peking for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

Mr. HARRIS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who represents this country's interests in Afghanistan; and whether he can make any statement as to the present condition in that country?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As there is no Government in Afghanistan recognised by His Majesty's Government, no foreign representative in that country has been charged with the representation of British interests since the withdrawal of His Majesty's Legation from Kabul. As regards the second part of the question, my information concerning the recent course of events in Afghanistan is similar
to that which has appeared in the Press. At the present moment, it would appear that the Amir Habibullah is in control of a large part of the country, but that he is still opposed in the Eastern and Southern Provinces by the supporters of General Nadir Khan.

Mr. HARRIS: Is any country at present represented in Afghanistan to whom communications can be sent?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS CONFERENCE (SAAR VALLEY).

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended at the forthcoming International Conference on Reparations and other subjects to discuss the possibility of the restoration to Germany of the Saar Basin?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the contention that the Saar question cannot be discussed, pending the decision on the Young Report, has been conveyed to His Majesty's Government from Paris; and whether His Majesty's Government acquiesce in this contention?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The German Government have indicated their intention of raising this question at the Conference, but I would remind the hon. Member that it is quite distinct from the two main problems with which the Conference is called on to deal—reparations, and the evacuation of the Rhineland.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In connection with question 16, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government have received any information from Paris as to whether the French Government would permit this matter to be discussed?

Mr. HENDERSON: I would not be correct in saying that we have no information on the point, but I cannot add to the reply which I have given, that it is not one of the subjects which will have to be raised definitely at the Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then we are to understand that His Majesty's Government definitely take the point of view of
the French Government in refusing to allow the Saar question to be raised at this Conference?

Mr. HENDERSON: My right hon. and gallant Friend must not come to those conclusions. I have never suggested such a thing, and, what is more, His Majesty's Government would not prevent the Germans raising the question of the Saar at the Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But are we to understand that, if it is raised by the Germans, His Majesty's Government will say that it is not a question which can be raised at that Conference?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I shall have to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to await our attitude at the Conference.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has yet been decided where the reparations conference will be held in August?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir, no decision has yet been reached.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Would it not be better to have this Conference in some neutral country, where there can be no objections?

Mr. HENDERSON: I should have thought that every hon. Member would be anxious for us to have it at home.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

ICELANDIC WATERS (BRITISH SKIPPER'S APPEAL).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Skipper Warrender, of the Grimsby trawler "St. Malo," was recently fined 12,000 kroner for alleged breach of the Icelandic fishery laws; that an appeal has been lodged against this decision of the Icelandic court at Reykjavick; will be instruct His Majesty's Consul at Reykjavick to render all assistance possible to Skipper Warrender; and will be obtain a report of the court proceedings?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I have received a report to this effect, and
am sending the necessary instructions to His Majesty's Consul-General at Reykjavik.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see the report when he receives it?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member will see me, I will consider how far that is possible.

LOSS OF GEAR (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. FOOT: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the complaints of West Country fishermen in respect of their loss of gear owing to the large number of wrecks lying on the sea-bottom in the English Channel; and if he is able to make any proposal for assistance towards these losses?

Commander WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to be able to announce a policy of insurance of gear for those fishermen whose losses off the south coast of Devon and Cornwall have been so great because of the War wrecks?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am well aware of the difficulties to which the questions refer, and have seriously considered the various proposals for alleviating them which have been put forward from time to time. I regret, however, that I have been unable to discover any practical means by which the Government could give assistance to the fishermen in the matter of losses of gear through contact with wrecks.

Mr. FOOT: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation representing the West Country fishermen on this important matter?

Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has yet come to a conclusion in answer to a deputation which was received by the Minister on this matter only a short time ago?

Mr. BUXTON: No deputation has been received by me, but I searched the records for any proposals, and I did not find any that could be adopted.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I take it from that that the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of an insurance policy for gear?

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of establishing a separate Ministry of Fisheries?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The Government are fully alive to the importance of the fishing industry, and, while they are unable to adopt the proposal put forward by the hon. Member, I have no reason to suppose that the interests of the industry will suffer in any way in consequence.

INQUIRY.

Sir G. RENTOUL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to institute an official investigation into the problems of the fishing industry, with a view both to the development of the industry and to the amelioration of the lot of fishermen and their families; and, if so, what form will such investigation take and what will be the exact scope of the inquiry?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I have been asked to reply. The Fisheries Department, which is in daily contact with the fishing industry of England and Wales through the Coastal Staff of Inspectors and Fishery Officers, is familiar (with the problems of the industry, as I am assured is the Fishery Board for Scotland. I am, however, considering with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether there is any occasion for any formal official inquiry to supplement the general review in which we are both engaged.

Sir G. RENTOUL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a definite pledge that such an inquiry would be held was given at the last election, on the strength of which many fishermen were asked to support the party opposite?

Mr. BUXTON: I have already said that we are engaged in a general review.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a definite pledge was given that, immediately a Labour Government was returned, an official investigation would be set on foot?

Mr. BUXTON: We are carrying out all our pledges.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see if this carrying out of pledges can be expedited for the benefit of the Opposition?

PORT OF BRIXHAM.

Mr. W. BENNETT: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any steps have yet been taken by his Department to assist the fishing port of Brixham, in Devon?

Mr. N. BUXTON: During the past 10 years Brixham Harbour undertaking has received generous assistance from the Exchequer. I will send my hon. Friend a statement on the subject, which is too long for an oral answer. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is going to discuss the financial situation of the harbour undertaking with representatives of the harbour authority on Wednesday next.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman look on this harbour with as friendly an eye as his predecessor did?

HARBOUR, STAITHES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has been able to take any steps to facilitate the improvement of the harbour at Staithes in the interests of the fishing community?

Mr. N. BUXTON: A scheme for the improvement of the Harbour of Staithes has been approved and arrangements have been made for Grants-in-aid through the Development Commission subject to a contribution from local sources. Tenders have been invited by the Harbour Commissioners, and it is hoped that the work will be commenced before the end of the summer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his efficient action.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT REGULATIONS.

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the case of British nationals who desire to visit several European countries, he is considering framing any fresh passport regulations which will extend the
present system to meet the convenience of ordinary travellers, instead of requiring a specific list of all countries which it is intended to visit?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The countries for which passports are valid must be specified therein, but I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that in order to meet the convenience of travellers a system has been adopted whereby passports are now in ordinary cases made valid for a group of at least 10 European countries including or in addition to those applied for.

Mr. DAY: Have those 10 countries to be specified by the intended traveller, or are they arranged for by the Foreign Office?

Mr. HENDERSON: I should have to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHINELAND (BRITISH OCCUPATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any official intimation from the German Government that they would prefer British occupation of the Rhine-land to continue until a simultaneous evacuation by England, France, and Belgium can be obtained?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I have received no intimation from the German Government on this subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this question in his speech the other day, would it not be possible to obtain from the German Government their view on the matter, which so materially affects our interests in the Rhineland?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think that in the reference I made the other day I alluded to conversations which had taken place at Locarno, and also in September last at Geneva. The German Foreign Minister, Dr. Stresemann, took part in those conversations, and I am content to await his view at the coming conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC AND TRADE RELATIONS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government of Russia has approached the present British Government on the subject of the resumption of diplomatic relations; whether any representatives of the Soviet Government have been invited to come or are being sent to London to consult with His Majesty's Government; if so, what are the names and official positions of such representatives; whether the Government has sent representatives to or have been in communication with the Soviet Government for a similar purpose; if so, what are the names of such representatives; whether other means of communication have been employed; and, if so, will he inform the House what they are?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Soviet Government has not approached His Majesty's Government through any channel, but an invitation for a responsible representative of the Soviet Government to visit London in order to discuss the most expeditious procedure for reaching a settlement of outstanding questions has been sent to the Soviet Government through the Norwegian Government.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman treat the questions of the resumption of diplomatic relations and trading with England as separate questions, and not reestablish a trading agreement until this House has had the opportunity of considering it?

Mr. HENDERSON: I understand that the Prime Minister is answering a question on this point which is to be put to him from the Opposition Front Bench.

Major WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a Report from the recent Commercial Commission which visited Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: We have received a Report, and I spent some of my precious Sabbath reading it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we to understand that the Dominion Govern-
ments all agree with the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter? May I have an answer?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, after you have called another question and that question has been put, it is in order for an hon. Member to press supplementary questions on the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Member will perhaps allow me to deal with that matter.

Commander BELLAIRS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the official statement of the Board of Trade that they are without information as to the conditions under which large quantities of Russian timber are produced and subsequently imported into this country, he will obtain information as to whether these supplies are the outcome of forced labour?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. This is one of the many questions upon which His Majesty's Government, in the absence of the normal machinery of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, are unable to obtain information.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the absence of information on the part of His Majesty's Government and of the International Labour Office, is it not possible to obtain the information from the British timber trade, which is importing supplies? Is it not of great importance that the Government should not trade with a country which employs forced labour?

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a day for Debate on the resumption of relations with Russia before any Soviet officials set foot on these shores?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as Papers were laid and an opportunity afforded to the House to express its opinion before diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government were broken off, he will afford the House a like opportunity of expressing its opinion before they are resumed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have personally examined the procedure of 1927. Certain papers were laid before the Debate of 26th May, 1927, on the Arcos raid, but not before the late Government had taken action and carried out the raid. His Majesty's Government would certainly propose to lay Papers on the subject of the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government as soon as possible, and the appropriate time will presumably be when the correspondence has reached some issue. It will be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that in 1927 the Debate was asked for and granted after the decision of the Government had been taken. If the right hon. Gentleman has in mind that we should follow precisely what was done by our predecessors in 1927, that is exactly what I have in my mind also.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will complete his negotiations, take the decision and lay Papers, but not take the final step until this House has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. S. Baldwin) made a statement to the House of our intention to break off diplomatic relations, and announced that that would be done if the House did not express a contrary opinion on a day later in the week, which was named?

The PRIME MINISTER: The 1927 situation was practically, I think, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated. The Government pursued its inquiries, it had all its consultations and came to its conclusion, and then the Prime Minister stated in the House that on a certain day the decision would be effective unless the House decided otherwise. That is exactly my proposal.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we likely to have a Debate before the House breaks up?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not at all likely.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does that mean that, if the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet are not concluded before we separate, the re-
presentatives of the Soviet Government will not be admitted to this country in October or November?

The PRIME MINISTER: It means that any conclusion that His Majesty's Government may come to regarding recognition cannot become effective until it has been debated in this House.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: That means that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dodge—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers.

Mr. SMITHERS: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he still adheres to the statement of principles which he laid down in his note on the Zinovieff letter; and, before making an agreement as to the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, will he take steps to satisfy the House that, in accordance with his statement of principle, these undertakings can be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit and that the Soviet Government has the power to carry out any such agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: The circumstances in which the note of 24th October, 1924, was sent to the Russian representative in London have previously been explained to the House and I do not propose again to refer to that point. As regards the principle laid down in that note, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made during the course of the Debate on 2nd July, 1929. With regard to the future, the position was explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 5th July, 1929, and I have nothing to add to that explanation.

Mr. SMITHERS: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to that statement of principle?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Mr. SMITHERS: 56.
asked the Prime Minister how many of the Dominion Governments have replied to his communication with regard to the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government of Russia; and which of the Governments are in favour and which are not in favour of resumption of diplomatic relations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. I have nothing to add to the replies on this point which the Prime Minister returned to the hon. Member on 11th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (FARM RELIEF BILL).

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain a report of the main proposals of the American Government, contained in the measure now under consideration, for the assistance and development of agriculture in the United States?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has reported that the President signed the United States Farm Relief Bill on 15th June. Sir Esmé Howard, who has already forwarded the text of the Bill in its original form, will forward in due course the text of the Act as passed, and I shall be pleased to let my hon. Friend have a copy.

Mr. TAYLOR: Having regard to the plight of British agriculture, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of furnishing every Member of this House with a copy of that report?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH, HAVANA.

Mr. EDE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received a report on the killing of Thomas Hunt, of South Shields, a ship's cook, in Havana, during the month of June; and what steps have been taken to bring the person or persons responsible to justice?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received a report from which it appears that the Cuban police have the matter in hand, and I have no reason to anticipate that they will not pursue the case energetically. I am, however, instructing His Majesty's Minister at Havana to watch the case and to report how the matter progresses.

Mr. EDE: Will the report be available to hon. Members?

Mr. HENDERSON: As far as I can see at the moment, there is nothing to prevent us from giving the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BRITISH NATIONALS).

Mr. ALLEN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether during the recent civil war in Mexico any damage was done to the property of British nationals, either by the insurgent forces or by the Government forces; and, if so, have any representations been made by His Majesty's representative in Mexico to the Government of Mexico?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes; four such cases have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, the damage in all four cases having been done by insurgent forces. The Mexican Government took energetic steps to suppress the rebellion, and no representations have been made by His Majesty's Minister in Mexico City.

Mr. ALLEN: Is it not a fact that the Monroe Doctrine prevents His Majesty's Government from making proper representations on behalf of our nationals in South America during civil war?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is an important question of which I must have notice.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the insurgents were armed? From whom did they receive their arms?

HON. MEMBERS: From the Soviet!

Oral Answers to Questions — NICARAGUA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. ALLEN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the recent civil war in Nicaragua any damage was done to the property of British nationals, either by the insurgent forces or by the Government forces acting in conjunction with the American corps of marines; and, if so, have any representations been made by His Majesty's representative in Nicaragua to the Government of Nicaragua?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires
at Managua has presented to the Nicaraguan Foreign Office 117 British claims arising out of the disturbances in question. The majority of these were submitted by British West Indians on the east coast. British subjects in Nicaragua are exempt by treaty from military requisitions. A large proportion of the claims arose from the requisitioning of live stock by the military authorities.

Mr. ALLEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a Bolshevist publication, known as "The Workers' Illustrated," a representative of the Communist party visited the forces of General Sandino the Nicaraguan revolutionary leader?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ITALY.

Mr. HANNON: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the statement embodied in the recent Report on the economic situation in Italy that the position of the United Kingdom in the import trade of that country has fallen to fourth place in 1928 in contrast with second place in 1925; and if he will state the causes which have brought about the change?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have been asked to reply. The fall to fourth place in the United Kingdom share of the Italian import trade is attributable in large measure to the heavy decrease in the value per ton of imported coal. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, coal forms by far the largest item in Italian imports from this country. The quantity imported from the United Kingdom was in 1928 only 4½ per cent. below 1925, but the value had fallen by nearly 40 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that shows the folly of the general strike and the coal dispute?

TRADE COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether in view of the recommendations from time to time made by trade commissioners as to the possibility of improving trade in different parts of the
Empire, he can state what steps are taken to bring to the notice of those branches of industry specially affected the advice which may be given by the commissioners; and whether he will instruct these commissioners to record in all future Reports any improvements which have been made in respect of the shortcomings to which they have called attention?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have been asked to reply. The Department employs various methods for bringing to the notice of the commercial interests concerned the information and advice which is transmitted by overseas officers. If confidential it is issued by letter to selected recipients. If suitable for public circulation it may be communicated to suitable Press organs or published in volume form. Since under standing instructions officers report to the Department in regard to the effect of any action initiated by them, I hardly think that the new instructions suggested by the hon. Member are necessary.

UNITED STATES TARIFF.

Mr. HANNON: 27.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received communications from chambers of commerce and various trade organisations on the contemplated changes in the United States tariffs; and if representations have been made to the Government of the United States on the subject?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the effect upon our export trade of the proposed United States tariff, he has yet taken any steps to register a protest?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have received some communications on the subject of the proposed tariff increases, but no representations have, up to the present, been made to the United States Government by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The matter is being carefully watched.

Mr. HANNON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when he contemplates that representations will be made by His Majesty's Government to the United States Government?

Mr. SMITH: I do not think it is possible at the moment to add anything to the answer which I have already given.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the gravity of the situation to the trade of this country?

Mr. SMITH: I have already stated that the position is being carefully watched by the Government.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge the Cabinet to do their best to induce all other countries to reduce their tariff walls?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these proposed changes are having a much worse effect upon our trade than up the trade of any other country; and, in view of the fact that 40 other countries have sent representations, will he also send representations to the United States?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have received any telegraphic comments from any of the Dominions, Possessions, or Colonies upon the proposals of the Government in regard to Imperial Preference; and, if so, whether he will communicate the same to the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I have been asked to reply to this question. As the hon. Member will have gathered from Press reports, a telegram has been received from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. With regard to the second part of the question, as has been explained to the House on many occasions in recent years, it would be impossible for there to be a frank interchange of views between the Prime Ministers of the various parts of the Empire if the course suggested in the question were adopted.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Have any communications been received from Queensland?

Mr. PONSONBY: I think not, but I should like notice.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What opportunity does the hon. Gentleman sug-
gest the House should have of being informed on this matter before it is asked to take a decision?

Mr. PONSONBY: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that piecemeal publication of telegraphic communications from the Dominions would be very undesirable.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I accept the objection to piecemeal publication, but, when the correspondence is complete, will the hon. Gentleman see that it is laid?

Mr. PONSONBY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How did this first dispatch get into the Press?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have no control over the Press.

EMPIRE COTTON.

Sir W. de FRECE: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the report of the Uganda Cotton Inquiry Commission recommending immediate legislation to fix a minimum price for the growers; whether he is aware that at present Empire cotton growing is suffering from a serious set-back owing to low prices; and whether, to make the Cabinet plans to stimulate cotton growing in the Empire effective, the Government proposes, first of all, to deal with cotton prices as suggested?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Lunn): I have seen a summary in the Press, but it is not expected that copies of the Report will be available in this country for a few weeks. In the meantime, I can only assure the hon. Member that the Report, and the recommendations contained in it relating to the fixing of cotton prices, will receive the most careful consideration.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that advertisements have been inserted in the newspapers on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board urging the public to buy Irish eggs and Irish butter; and whether, in view of the
state of agriculture, he will take steps to discontinue advertisements paid for by the British taxpayers of produce from countries that give us no preference in their markets?

Mr. LUNN: The declared policy of the Empire Marketing Board is to invite the public to buy first the produce of their own country, and next the produce of the other parts of the Empire. Full weight has been given to the claims of the home producer in every branch of the Board's activities, and during the last few months, in addition to much general publicity on behalf of the home farmer, special press advertisements have been widely inserted in favour of such homo agricultural products as National Mark Eggs, Tomatoes and Cucumbers. In reply to the second part of the question, without discussing the principle involved, I would remind the hon. Member that it is not the case that no preference is accorded by the Irish Free State.

GRINDSTONES (EXPORT TO UNITED STATES).

Commander WILLIAMS: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the cause of the serious decline in the export of grindstones to the United States of America in 1928?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am unable to say what was the particular cause of the decrease in exports of grindstones from this country to the United States in 1923. Those exports have been decreasing since 1924, and the total imports of grindstones entered for consumption in the United States have also decreased markedly in the same period. It is known that the use of artificial abrasives has been increasing.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OUTPUT.

Brigadier- General CLIFTON BROWN: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the preparation of another report on the lines of the 1925 Report on the Agricultural Output of England and Wales?

Mr. N. BUXTON: It is proposed to take the next census of agricultural production in the year 1930–1931 and the results will subsequently be embodied in a report as soon as practicable.

TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES (ACREAGE ABSORBED).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the acreage of land lost to agriculture since 1925 by being built upon or absorbed by local authorities, local government legislation, and others for schemes of planning, development, and drainage, etc.?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I regret that this information is not available.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that hundreds of thousands of acres of good agricultural land are being taken away every year from agriculture by these big roads and buildings, and is that in the interests of agriculture?

TOMATOES (MARKING).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what action, if any, the Government propose to take on the Report of the Standing Committee on Tomatoes?

Sir BASIL PETO: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether an Order will be made for the marking of tomatoes imported into this country in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee under the Merchandise Marks Acts?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) on 11th July, in reply to a similar question, from which they will see that the matter is under consideration.

WEEDS, BARTON STACEY.

Mr. DENMAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to an excess of weeds in Barton Stacey; and whether he will serve an appropriate notice upon the delinquent?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The position in regard to certain land at Barton Stacey has been engaging the attention of my Department for some time past. As recently as last week notices were served calling upon the occupiers to cut or destroy injurious weeds on the land within three weeks from the date of the notice.

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES.

Mr. KEDWARD: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious financial condition of many agriculturists and the disparity which exists between the prices paid for cattle, corn, fruit, and vegetables, and the prices charged to the public for these commodities, he proposes to take any action in the matter: and, if so, upon what lines?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As I stated, in reply to a question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on 4th July, the situation envisaged by the hon. Member illustrates the need for improved marketing methods, a subject which is engaging the close attention of my Department.

Mr. KEDWARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of calling together a three-party conference to deal with this urgent matter? As the Prime Minister urged us to co-operate with the Government, does he not think that this is a suitable matter for a conference of the three parties to try and find an agreed solution?

Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that question does not arise. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question.

PIG SALES (WEIGHING FACILITIES).

Mr. KEDWARD: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government have under consideration the compulsory provision and use of weighing facilities at all public auctions where fat pigs are sold?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The Pig Industry Council, which sits under the ægis of my Department, has recently discussed this matter with the National Farmers' Union. The Union is proceeding to consult its county branches whose views will, no doubt, be shortly available.

WAGES AND HOURS.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will supply the average rate of wages and average standard of working hours of farm workers in those European countries which are importing food and farm produce into Great Britain?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The conditions of employment and the classification of
farm workers in different European countries varies so greatly that it is impossible to prepare any tabular statement showing average wages and hours which would not prove misleading. I am, however, sending to my hon. Friend separate particulars respecting the wages and hours of agricultural workers in a number of European countries which I trust will be of interest to him.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to introduce legislation to increase the number of small holdings?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I am not in a position at present to make any announcement on this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of introducing legislation on these lines before Christmas?

Mr. BUXTON: I think it will be better to wait and see.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications for small holdings made to the county councils under the Small Holdings Act, 1926; the number approved; the total acreage applied for; and what steps are being taken to satisfy the requirements of the applicants?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As the reply is rather long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, Jo circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

On 15th December, 1926, the date of the passing of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, there were 5,565 applicants for holdings on the waiting lists of councils in England and Wales. Between that date and the 31st December, 1928, 6,036 additional applications were received, making a total of 11,601 applicants who required about 210,000 acres of land. These applications had been dealt with as follows up to the 31st December, 1928:


Approved and provided with holdings
2,274


Approved but still awaiting holdings
2,320


Rejected as unsuitable or withdrawn from the lists
3,782


Awaiting interview or standing over
3,225

Councils are able to settle considerable numbers of applicants on the occurrence of vacancies on their existing estates, which comprise about 28,000 holdings. In addition, schemes for the acquisition of additional land have already been approved under the Act providing for over 300 new holdings. The present agricultural situation does not encourage rapid progress, but proposals for the acquisition of further land continue to be received.

EGGS MARKING SCHEME.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that while producers and wholesalers, under the egg-marking scheme, sell their eggs in three grades, the retailers either mix them to the general public or sell them without stating what grade they are selling; and will he consider introducing legislation to protect the consumer?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The problem is largely one of educating the consumer, and, in the first instance, I am considering what further steps can be taken in this direction.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is an increasing trouble of the consumer—that, owing to the recent legislation on this subject, there has been a considerable amount of mixing of eggs, and that the consumer suffers?

Mr. BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct, and steps are being taken to educate the consumer.

POLICY.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to give any information as to the agricultural legislation which he proposes to introduce this Session?

Mr. GRANVILLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he intends to make a statement of the Government's policy on agriculture?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I am exploring the action, both administrative and legislative, which will be necessary and practicable in order to carry out the agricul-
tural policy of the Government, and I hope to be able to make a statement in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. ROTHSCHILD: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to adopt the Majority Report of the inter-Departmental Committee on Agricultural Unemployment Insurance, submitted to the Minister of Agriculture in August, 1926, in favour of the extension to agricultural workers of insurance against unemployment?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary informed the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) on 10th July, the question of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers is receiving careful consideration.

BENEFIT (CONDITIONS).

Mr. CLARKE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if, before the Summer Adjournment, he will abolish the genuinely seeking work restriction of the Unemployment Acts and the waiting period, and indicate what increase in unemployment benefit is to be made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I have been asked to reply. While we are seeking to humanise the administration wherever it is possible, these changes could not be made without legislation; and, with regard to this, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on 10th July.

Major COLFOX: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us roughly what he means by the word "humanise"?

DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (BRITISH MATERIALS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 76.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in schemes of development for promoting employment such as road making, he will in the case of Government schemes insist and, in the case of other developments, advise that all material used should be British; or
whether he will lay down as a maxim that for materials of equal quality purchases should be made in the cheapest market?

Mr. BEN SMITH (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which my hon. Friend gave on the 9th July to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division (Sir W. Edge), and of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOMING PIGEONS (PROTECTION).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in certain districts much loss is caused to owners of homing pigeons by peregrine falcons; and whether he will take steps to allow these birds to be reduced in number in certain specified districts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I have been asked to reply to this question. From time to time the Home Office has received representations on this matter, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no power under the Wild Birds Protection Acts to grant licences for these birds to be taken, and his power to make local orders for diminishing or increasing the amount of protection afforded to any class of bird is only exerciseable on application made to him by a county council or county borough council. The proper course for any person desiring a modification of the protection accorded to these birds in any locality is to address his representations to the council concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FILM.

Mr. DAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public interest in talking pictures, he will consider holding conversation with the leaders of the opposition parties of this House with a view to taking a talking film of the proceedings of the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether there is any large body of opinion in the House in favour of this proposal.

Mr. DAY: In view of the great interest shown by the public in the talking film of the Cabinet, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

DIVISIONS.

Mr. DAY: 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that 326 Members of the last House of Commons signed a petition requesting that a coloured light be displayed from the top of the Clock Tower to signalise to Members approaching the House of Commons when a Division is in progress, he will consider the advisability of such a light being displayed in order to give such warning of Divisions to Members?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I am aware that 326 Members of the last House of Commons signed the petition in question, and will make inquiries through the usual channels as to whether the Members of the present House of Commons are of the same opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to consider the subject of Ministerial salaries with a view to their revision and reduction?

Mr. BRACKEN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Select Committee to examine into the expenses attaching to the duties of the office of Prime Minister and to recommend to the House such additions to his salary as may be found desirable?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could only initiate an inquiry into these matters if it were the general opinion of the House that I should do so.

Mr. LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when deciding upon a policy of continuity with regard to Ministerial salaries, he took into account the poverty of the people?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and also, if I may say so, the charges entailed upon Ministers.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is the Prime Minister, in taking his decision, considering the possibility of a working man occupying
his present office, and the fact that such working man could not remain solvent if he had to meet his expenses; and, surely, there is a—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there was not an inquiry of this kind in 1921; whether definite recommendations were not made then; and whether he will not consider the desirability of putting those recommendations into operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is always a certain amount of delicacy in these matters, and the conclusion I came to was that the inquiry held in 1921 belongs to somewhat ancient history. If the House now desires anything to be done, I myself have come to no decision beyond saying that, if an inquiry is initiated, it ought to be in pursuance of an expressed general opinion of this House.

Major COLFOX: Does the Prime Minister not realise that in every part of the House there is a strong feeling that many Ministers' salaries ought to be increased?

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I do not know whether I should be in order in saying that, so far as we are concerned, we should help in such an inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general concensus of opinion throughout the country is that the Prime Minister is very much underpaid?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. FOOT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to abolish or modify the existing means limit in relation to old age pensions?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot at present add anything to the announcement made in the King's Speech that the Government are engaged on a general survey of the various National Insurance and Pension schemes.

Mr. FOOT: Do I understand that the question of the revision of the old age pension scheme may come within the terms of the legislation foreshadowed in the King's Speech?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Most certainly.

Sir F. HALL: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from one of the friendly societies requesting that the Government should reduce the pension age from 65 years to 60, and that the pension should be increased both for men and women to 20s. per week each on attaining 60 years of age; what would be the cost of such alteration; and whether the Government propose to introduce legislation so that the wishes of the friendly society may become effective?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, many communications have been received suggesting extensions of the Contributory Pensions Act; as regards the second part, it is estimated that the net additional annual cost of reducing the pension age from 65 to 60 and increasing the rate of pension to 20s. a week would be approximately £83,000,000 in the first years and would increase rapidly; as regards the third part, my right hon. Friend can give no information in anticipation of the introduction of the amending Bill of which he has given notice.

Sir F. HALL: Have the Government any intention in any shape or form of undertaking the proposal referred to in this question? Will they say "yes" or "no"?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have nothing to add to my original answer.

Sir F. HALL: May I assume that, owing to the promises the Minister of Agriculture referred to to-day, the Government are not in a position to carry out the obligations which they undertook or to deny them?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENTS CONTRACTS (BRITISH MATERIALS).

Commander WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if it is his intention to withdraw the Clause in Government contracts that wherever possible British goods and material should be used?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not the intention of the Government to change the existing practice in this respect.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is there any foundation for the statement, made the other day by the Secretary of State for India to the effect that, the more imports there are into this country, the more employment there is?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIGNOR MUSSOLINI.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are permitting Signor Mussolini to come to this country?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. I have not heard that Signor Mussolini has any idea of coming to England.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL LAW.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state the terms of reference, and the names of the Members who are to constitute the inquiry into electoral reform?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to what I said on 10th July in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I shall make an announcement immediately agreement is reached.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss the terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, I should like to arrange a meeting to-day if certain very important official engagements will enable me to find time. I am only waiting for that opportunity to invite the right hon. Gentlemen to meet me.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the questions of plural voting and representation of universities?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has already been declared. The terms will be framed so that the experiences of the late election will be covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration an increase in the sum set aside for civil list pensions so as to permit an increase of the individual amounts granted to deserving men and women?

The PRIME MINISTER: The total amount of new pensions which may be granted in any year is limited by the statutory provisions of the Civil List Act. In present circumstances I cannot contemplate the introduction of amending legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (COPYRIGHTS BILL).

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a Bill which has just passed its committee stage in the Parliament of the Irish Free State, entitled the Copyrights Preservation Bill, 1929, which will make nugatory a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is the supreme tribunal to which citizens in the Irish Free State are entitled to apply in accordance with Article 66 of the Free State constitution, embodying a similar article in the Anglo-Irish Treaty: and what action the British Government proposes to take to secure the strict observance of the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty with regard to the right of British citizens resident in the Irish Free State to appeal to the Privy Council?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have been asked to reply. The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the terms of the Copyright (Preservation) Bill, which is at present before the Irish Free State Parliament. His understanding of the position is that, though there is a case pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, there is no judgment of the Committee which is affected by the terms of the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the object of this Bill is to deprive British citizens in the Irish Free State of their right, reserved to them under the Treaty, of appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? This is a very serious matter indeed.

Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is a very technical legal question, and he must give me notice of any further question.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it really a very technical question, the securing to British citizens in the Dominions of their right" under the Anglo-Irish Treaty?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, EDINBURGH (PERAMBULATORS).

Mr. MATHERS: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that there is a prohibition against perambulators being wheeled through the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh; whether he approves of this embargo; and whether he will take steps to have it removed or modified?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am aware that at present there are restrictions on the admission of perambulators to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh. I am considering whether modification of the Regulations in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (CHAIRS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that on the morning of the King's return to London the price of chairs in Hyde Park in the vicinity of the route was raised to 6d.; whether this was done with his consent; and, if so, on what grounds?

Mr. LANSBURY: It has been the custom in the past on such occasions to allow the contractor to place chairs along the line of route for use as stands, and to make an extra charge for these chairs on the understanding that the persons hiring them could use them as stands. This course was followed in the present instance.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE OF WORKS.

Mr. H. W. WALLACE: 71.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of porters and packers at present in the direct employment of the Office of Works, Supplies Division; the number in July, 1914; what period of annual leave was granted in 1914; what period is now
granted; and whether the question of increasing the annual leave is being considered?

Mr. LANSBURY: There are 62 porter-packers employed at present. The number in July 1914, when the work was mostly done by contract, was 17. In 1914 the men were granted nine days leave and two public holidays. This was changed for new entrants to six days annual leave and six public holidays. An increase in the number of days holiday for these workers is a matter which concerns other public Departments and would have to be considered and decided for the whole service.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the question of increasing them being considered?

Mr. LANSBURY: It can only be considered in relation to the workers in other Departments.

Mr. WALLACE: Is it proposed to consider increasing them?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that it would be better to put down a question to the Treasury on that point.

Mr. KELLY: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of men and women discharged by the Office of Works during the last three months?

Mr. LANSBURY: The total number discharged in the period stated has been 356, including 209 relief workers in the Royal Parks, on the exhaustion of the Unemployment Relief Funds, 90 stokers at the end of the heating season and 57 others temporarily employed for certain works which have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIO DE JANEIRO (BRITISH EMBASSY).

Mr. HANNON: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what progress is being made with the erection of the new embassy building at Rio de Janeiro?

Mr. LANSBURY: The preparation of plans for the erection of an Embassy on the Rua Real Grandeza site which was purchased in 1928, has been temporarily suspended. A town planning scheme for Rio, now under consideration of the municipal authorities and the Brazilian
Government, includes the provision of a new Embassy quarter in the best part of Rio on the sea front, on which sites will be allocated at nominal rents to the various diplomatic missions. As the new site is more valuable than the present one, it was thought prudent to defer building until further information is available.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this new site on the sea front will be available?

Mr. LANSBURY: No, I am afraid that I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (NEW CONSTRUCTION).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HORE-BELISHA:

90. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the vessels to be built under the 1928 shipbuilding programme will be laid down?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order. With reference to my question, No. 90, which I addressed to the Prime Minister and which has been altered by the Clerk at the Table, to the First Lord of the Admiralty, may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I put this question to the First Lord of the Admiralty last week, and I was referred to the Prime Minister. I now direct my question to the Prime Minister, and the Clerk at the Table, without notice to me, alters it back to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I want to ask you, as a point of principle, whether, when a. Member of this Houses addresses a question to a Minister, it is competent for the Clerk at the Table to re-direct that question to another Minister, so that the hon. Member concerned loses his place on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been unfortunate. Hon. Members do, in putting questions, sometimes make the mistake of putting a question to the wrong Minister.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether it is not the case that, when a Member directs a question to a Minister who is not competent to answer it, it is usual for another Minister to answer it, and say that he has been asked to answer
it. If that procedure is followed, an hon. Member may know exactly where he stands. I have put a Question of great importance to my constituency, and I am twice prevented from getting an answer to it, and am not even given notice that a change is made.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that is a matter for the Minister concerned.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is my point.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have no control over them.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This is a question affecting the rights of a Member. Having been specifically referred to the Prime Minister for an answer I addressed my Question to the Prime Minister, and my complaint is that it is not left addressed to that Minister by the Clerk at the Table. I want to ask whether it is competent for the Clerk at the Table to re-direct questions which Members properly address to Ministers capable of answering them?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members very often do make mistakes, and address questions to the wrong Minister. Unless the Clerk at the Table is informed of the special circumstances of the case, he would cause the question to be directed to the Minister whom it seemed to concern.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, that is not the point.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been unfortunate, but I hope it will not occur again.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (REVISION OF CONTRIBUTIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71 A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient that the provisions of the Housing Acts (Revision of Contributions) Order, 1928, relating to houses subject to special conditions in the case of which contributions are to be provided under section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, should cease to have effect and that the same contributions should be payable and the same provisions applicable in the case of any such houses completed after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, as are applicable in the case of any such houses completed on or before that date, and that all such additional amounts as may become payable by virtue of this Resolution should be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Greenwood.]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): When the Government decided to take the step that has now been taken, I had hoped that, since the House was able to modify the rates of subsidy by Resolution of this House, we might have been enabled to undo these rates of subsidy by a similar process. Unfortunately, I was advised that once the House had by Resolution fixed the subsidy, legislation became necessary. I should like to point out, for the information of hon. Members who are new to our procedure, that as the Bill that is to come before the House on Thursday next is purely a Money Bill, which must originate in a Money Resolution of this kind, it would be most improper on my part, and against the Rules of the House, were I to issue the Bill before the Money Resolution had passed through all its stages. The Money Resolution and the White Paper which have been issued cover everything which will appear in the Bill.
Before dealing with the question of the Government's decision, I would remind the House of the present position of Exchequer contributions under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924. The original subsidy under the Act of 1923 was fixed at £6 a year for 20 years. That Act
was to operate for two years. It was prolonged by the Act of 1924. The subsidy provided under the Act of 1924, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), fixed the subsidy at £9 per house for 40 years, with an additional £3 10s. per house, making £12 10s., for cottages built in agricultural parishes. Under the Act of 1924, it was proposed that there should be a revision of the subsidy after every period of three years, but, unfortunately, much to the regret, I imagine, of many hon. Members, the then Labour Government were overborne and the period of revision was reduced and fixed to take place after every period of two years. Therefore, on the 30th September, 1926, the question of revision came under consideration and a lower rate of subsidy for both types of houses, for what were called Chamberlain and Wheatley houses, was introduced as from the beginning of October, 1927, from £6 to £4 in the case of the Chamberlain houses, from £9 to £7 10s. in the case of the Wheatley houses and from £12 10s. to £11 in the case of houses built in agricultural parishes: the equivalent of a cut of about £25 on the capital value of the subsidy.
In December of last year the Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) brought a Resolution to the House for the purpose of confirming an Order, which would have operated from the 1st October this year, introducing further revisions of the scale of subsidy. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will know that it was then proposed that the subsidy under the Act of 1923 should be abolished entirely that the subsidy under the Act of 1924 should be reduced from £7 10s. and £11 respectively to £6 and £9 10s., the latter having reference to houses built in agricultural parishes. I mention these facts in order that the Committee may see the position in which I was placed when I took over my present office. I realised that unless something were done by the House in this part of the Session, the result would be that when the House meets in October we should have been faced with a lower subsidy which had already begun to take effect. There has not been time—I think Members on all sides will admit that—in the few weeks during which the House is now meeting for the Government to
elaborate its more comprehensive housing and slum clearance policy, much less get a Measure through the House before we rise for the summer Recess. I was, therefore, faced with something in the nature of an emergency. I did not wish to prejudice the larger problem by permitting the subsidy of the Act of 1924 to be reduced, and find myself with the reduced subsidy in the autumn. It was essential that time should be given to complete the proposals which will, I hope, be put before the House at an early date after we resume, and I felt that it was necessary to give to the local authorities some stability so as not to imperil the continuance of the steady progress of housing schemes.
I have dealt with the matter in two different parts. Let me, first of all, say something about the subsidy under the Act of 1923. Here, I am following precisely the same lines as the Labour Government in 1924, that is to say, we are continuing the proposals laid down by our predecessors. In 1923, the Chamberlain Subsidy was introduced, and we accepted it and continued it. In 1928, the Conservative Government, in its wisdom, thought fit to terminate the Chamberlain subsidy as from the 1st October, 1929. When this matter was before the House the great opposition that was taken to the revision was to the proposed further cut in the subsidy under the Act of 1924, and not so much to the subsidy under the Act of 1923. I stated on that occasion that so far as I and the hon. Members who sat behind were concerned, we should not complain about the Chamberlain subsidy coming off. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to murder his own child, I do not see why I should come in and try to restore the corpse. I have agreed to carry on what was the policy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite as far as England and Wales are concerned, because I believe that that subsidy has now exhausted its usefulness. Moreover, I do not believe that that subsidy, however long continued, could solve the real and pressing problem of providing houses to let. On the matter, therefore, of the impending complete withdrawal of the subsidy under the Act of 1923, all quarters of the House, I imagine, will be agreed.
4.0 p.m.
The subsidy under the Housing Act of 1924 is an entirely different proposition. The further reduction of that subsidy was opposed by hon. Members who now sit on these benches and by hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway opposite. We had two Divisions on the question last December, and the two Oppositions were united in their view as to the undesirability of further reducing, at that stage, the subsidy under the Act of 1924. I imagine that had Conservative Members of the last Parliament been able to exercise their free discretion, a large number of them would have followed us into the lobby. Therefore, there is a good deal stronger case for continuing the Wheatley subsidy—to give it its usual name—at the present level, more especially as the proposal to reduce was made in the face of what, I believe, was the unanimous opposition of the local authorities. I would like to examine for a moment what has been our experience of the cut made in the subsidy in 1927. The case of the late Minister of Health was that if he reduced the subsidy he would lower prices. It is not my business to argue that now. I argued it from the opposite bench on more than one occasion in the last Parliament. If it is true to say that the price of houses is lower than it was, it is equally true to say that the number of houses being built is lower, and that is the real problem with which we are faced to-day.
What are the results of our experience of the operation of the cut in 1927 on both housebuilding and unemployment? When you put a proposal before the public that a subsidy for houses after a given date is to be reduced, the first and most obvious result is a rush to complete every available house in order to take advantage of the higher subsidy, and the ordinary development of housing programmes becomes broken. After the subsidy has fallen, work falls away, a smaller amount of housebuilding is put in hand and unemployment increases. That is exactly what has happened as the result of the break in the subsidy in 1927. The reduction which took place on 1st October, 1927, was announced to the House in December, 1926. From the very beginning of 1927 the number of houses under construction rose sharply
and reached a maximum in May. As many houses as could be completed before the end of September were put in hand, but then, from May to September, the number of houses which were actually beginning to be built began to fall away, because they could not be completed before the subsidy was reduced, local authorities were beginning to damp down their future programmes and they directed their energy to completing houses which were actually in course of construction.
It is perfectly true that in the month of September, 1927, the housing output of this country reached its maximum when over 52,000 houses were actually completed. But we ought to notice what followed upon that. At the end of September, 1926, when no word had been said about the reduction of the subsidy, though, of course, people, presumably, knew the law, over 102,000 houses were under construction. On the day when that old subsidy ceased to exist, exactly a year later, at the end of September, 1927, only about 52,000 houses were under construction. The number of houses actually being built had dwindled to one-half. By the end of October, 1927, the actual number being built had shrunk to 48,000, and during the whole of last year, 1928, the number of subsidy houses under construction at any time never exceeded 60,000, and it is interesting to see the progress that has been made in house building and the slowing down which followed the first reduction of the subsidy.
I will give the Committee the number of subsidised houses for England and Wales for each year ending 30th September. I give round figures, in thousands. In the year ending 30th September, 1924, the number completed was about 36,000; in 1925, it was 92,000; in 1926, 131,000; in 1927, after the great rush to build before the subsidy fell, 212,000; in 1928, the rush having exhausted local authorities, and created the reaction which many of us pointed out would inevitably follow, was 101,000; and up to the end of September this year I imagine we shall not build more than 120,000 subsidised houses in England and Wales. That in itself, I think, is a complete justification for the decision which the Government have taken to preserve the subsidy at its present level.

Sir BASIL PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an elucidation of the last figure—120,000?

Mr. GREENWOOD: In each case the number is for the year ending 30th September. It is a full year's quota, and is an estimate which, I understand, is likely to be a fairly accurate one. Then consider what was the effect of this very sudden slowing down in the rate of building. It obviously reacted on the state of unemployment. I know that criticisms were made from the Government Benches about our including unskilled workers in the figures of unemployment, but I would like to give the position with regard to unemployment of two skilled crafts in the building industry before the reduction of the subsidy and immediately afterwards. I take first the case of the bricklayers. In the last three months of 1926, before the reduction of the subsidy, unemployment amongst bricklayers was 5.2, 6.2 and 6.5 per cent. for October, November, and December respectively. In 1927, immediately after the reduction in the subsidy, unemployment amongst bricklayers in October, November and December had risen to 7.4, 9.3 and 14.7 per cent. respectively. In the case of the plasterers, the change in the volume of unemployment was even more marked. In the last three months of 1926, before the reduction of the subsidy, the percentage of unemployment amongst plasterers was 1.8, 2.9 and 4.1 per cent. In October, November and December, 1927, after the cut in the subsidy and the reduction in the volume of building, the percentage increased, the figures for October, November and December being 7.5, 11.4 and 17.9 per cent.
It is perfectly clear what will happen if we do that kind of thing again. Many of us on these benches and on the benches below the Gangway prophesied that this would be the course of events, but we were told that it would be all right, that it would pick up. Unfortunately, up to the present, that has not proved to be the case. The same thing is actually happening to-day as happened in the similar months of 1927, not on so large a scale, because so many houses are not being built as were being built in 1927, but the number of houses under construction is increasing in order that they may be completed before the subsidy will have come to an end at the end of Sep-
tember. Pressure is being put on to get these houses completed, and, as in the case of 1927, local authorities are already beginning to avoid any fresh commitments for housing, because of the further reduction of the subsidy. Unless, therefore, something is done, we may expect a repetition of 1927, a further cut in the amount of building, another increase in the amount of unemployment and a general disorganisation of the building industry. Therefore, I propose for the time being, that is to say, until after September of next year, when the next revision is due, to maintain the subsidy under the 1924 Act at its present level, and, in doing that, I think experience will justify the step which is being taken.
In the case of Scotland, the same policy has been adopted. As hon. Members are aware, Scotland, being a most-favourednation, has yet to suffer its first cut in the subsidy. The proposal in the Money Resolution and the proposal embodied in the Bill is that the present subsidy under the 1924 Act, the full subsidy, should be maintained, and as regards the subsidy under the Chamberlain Act, that that should be allowed to fall, as the late Government desired that it should fall.
My main contention is that this unseemly scramble for the few months prior to a proposed reduction of the subsidy is not good for the local authorities, is not good for the building industry, is not good for the workers in the building industry and is not in the interest of good housing. You may build houses rapidly for a month or two, but then, I am afraid, it may mean scamped houses and, therefore, worse houses. The local authorities are perfectly well aware of the evil results which follow this scramble, and they themselves would wish to avoid it. I have received the assurance of an important body representing local authorities that if the subsidy Order is modified, as we are now proposing that it should be, I can rely upon the local authorities continuing their building programmes without the hiatus which would inevitably have followed otherwise. I am glad to think that this proposal will achieve its object, and that we shall get a steady continuance, and, I hope, an expanding volume of house building under the auspices of our local authorities. This Money Resolution and the Bill which will follow it are therefore designed merely to bring a measure of stability and con-
tinuity for the time being to the building of houses to let, while a larger and more comprehensive scheme is being prepared and passed through Parliament.
I hope that with the assistance of Parliament, with the hearty co-operation of the building industry, and with the closest association with the local authorities, to secure, within a relatively short space of time now, the adoption of a reinvigorated and more determined housing and slum clearance policy. It would not be in order for me to deal with that question now, nor would it be possible at this stage to outline with any completeness the proposals on which the Government are working and which they propose to submit to the House in the near future, but I would commend this Resolution to the Committee as a purely preliminary measure necessitated by the circumstances of the case, not necessarily representing any final view and certainly not an attempt to cope with what we regard as the gravest aspects of the housing problem. I am sorry to have had to bring what appears to be so small a matter to the notice of the Committee. I had to do it in order to protect myself; in order to give an indication to local authorities of our earnest intentions; in order to inspire them to continue their building programmes and in order that they should feel that the Government were behind them in their desire to promote the maximum amount of house building with the knowledge that very shortly I shall be able to consult the industry and local authorities on larger measures in which I hope we shall all co-operate to eradicate the worst evils of housing and overcrowding from our midst.

Mr. DENMAN: Is it proposed to conduct this Debate with the rather strict limitations that were attached to the Debate on the Unemployment Insurance Financial Resolution or allow the wider kind of Debate which was permitted on the Empire Development Financial Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN: The Debate must be confined to the question of the subsidy and the houses affected by the subsidy.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and I have had a good many sharp differences of opinion in the past and it may possibly
be that those differences will not grow less by reason of the fact that we have exchanged positions in respect of this Table. Notwithstanding those differences, may I be allowed to offer him my congratulations on having succeeded to an office which, although it is one of the most arduous, is not exceeded in interest or importance by any other Department of State. Although I expect I shall have to differ from him on many points I know that he will bring to his duties the same sincerity, ability and industry, which he invariably displayed when he was in opposition. There are always two and frequently more sides to any problem. That is a fact which, as we have already observed in this Parliament, is more easily appreciated when you are in office than when you are in opposition. As the right hon. Gentleman gains further experience in his present office, it may be that he will come to entertain more kindly feelings and sentiments towards his predecessor than those he used to express so vehemently when all the responsibility was mine and all the freedom was his. Indeed, I begin to find evidence of progress on his part even in the Motion now before the Committee. Not very long ago the Prime Minister flew to Durham to address a meeting of his supporters and to give them some idea of the plans he was going to carry out in the new Parliament. In the course of his speech, he alluded to the housing subsidy, and he told his supporters this:
As soon as they got the King's Speech over, they would introduce a Bill to put back the subsidy for housing which was contained in the 1924 Act.
When I read that I was very seriously concerned. It did not occur to me to doubt that the Prime Minister was voicing a Cabinet decision. Indeed, I remembered that in December of last year, when I asked the House to approve the Order which I then made, in conjunction with the late Secretary of State for Scotland, under which, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the subsidy on the 1923 houses was to come to an end altogether and that on the 1924 houses was to be reduced on the 1st October next, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health moved an Amendment the effect of which was to do precisely what the Prime Minister said he was going to do—namely, to put back
the subsidy on the 1924 houses to what it was under the Act of 1924. That is not the proposal before us now. The proposal before us now is not to put back the subsidy where it was in 1924; it is to leave it where it is. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what has occurred between the time when the Prime Minister announced the decision of the Cabinet nine days ago and to-day, which has made him modify his views, and I am not going to try and embarrass him in any way by pressing him to give us any information. I believe now what I said last December in this House, that to put back the subsidy where it was in 1924 would be an act of absolute madness. I believe it would put up the price of houses. I do not want the price of houses to be increased, and, therefore, I welcome the moderation of view which has taken place in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and I am glad that they have abandoned their original idea.
What remains? What remains is not a positive but a negative proposal. It is to do nothing; instead of doing what I wanted to do—namely, to make a further reduction in the subsidy. The reason why the Government wish to avoid any further reduction in the subsidy is because they feel that it would lead to a reduction in the rate of building. They do not want to see the rate of building reduced. None of us want to see the rate of building reduced; we are all anxious that it should not only be maintained but increased, and we are glad that while we were in office we were able to increase the rate of building, indeed, so much so that we exceeded the programme laid down by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in 1924 by more than one-third. There is really no difference between any of the parties in the House as to the desirability of increasing the rate of building, provided, of course, you are building the right kind of house at the right price.
That is just where the difference of opinion comes in; the question of price. Last December the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it was more important to maintain the rate of building than it was to reduce the cost of building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am surprised that anybody should cheer that sentiment. If hon.
Members will consider their case against the 1923 Act, it is that it does not provide houses at a price which working people can afford to pay. That is the accusation made, not only against the Act of 1923 but against the houses built under the 1924 Act, and wherever we go to-day the cry is not merely give us houses but give us houses at a rent which we can afford to pay. Unless you can reduce the cost of building a very large part of our people, who are inadequately housed to-day, will have to give up all ideas of ever being able to occupy a new house of their own unless they choose to overcrowd it by taking in lodgers. For that reason it seems to me more important to cut down the cost of building even than to maintain the rate of building.

An HON. MEMBER: Did you reduce the subsidy in Scotland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is new to our debates. If he had been in the House in the last Parliament he would have realised that the question of Scotland is on a different footing and is dealt with by a different Minister. I do not pretend to have the local knowledge of Scotland which will enable me to enter into the particular reasons which, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, made the situation and problem rather different in Scotland. I think the Committee is probably aware that the whole purpose and reason for the reduction of the subsidy which was proposed to and approved by the House last December was to reduce the cost of building. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not agree that there is any connection between the amount of the subsidy and the cost of building. He is determined not to believe that there is any such connection, and per contra he is ready to swallow any story which may be put to him which purports to give any other reason why there should be a fall in the cost of building independently of what may happen to the subsidy. Whilst I have never said, and do not say now, that the price of houses is governed solely by the subsidy, I am convinced that the actual amount of the subsidy is a most important factor in fixing the price of houses and I have strong evidence in support of that view. When Einstein propounded his theory of Relativity he offered a test by which his theory might
be verified or otherwise. He predicted that if his theory was true a ray of light coming from a star behind the sun would be deflected by the curvature of space around the sun and an expedition was sent out on the occasion of the next eclipse to see whether in fact this did take place. The observations of the astronomers confirmed the truth of Einstein's prediction and most people accepted them as proof that Einstein's theory was correct. But, there were of course some people who were so tied by their old prejudices that they would not accept any evidence to the contrary. So it is with the particular subject that we are discussing to-day. In my humble way I followed Einstein's methods of induction and deduction. I set up my theory on certain observations. I predicted that if my theory was correct certain results would follow. And as a matter of fact they did follow. But the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to any evidence which showed against his theory, namely, that there is no connection between the subsidy and the cost of houses.
I see opposite a good many unfamiliar faces of Members who cannot have heard the previous debates which we have had. I should like, if I may, to give them some of the figures which brought me to the conclusions that I have been describing. Perhaps those who have heard them before will forgive their repetition. In 1921 there was in operation what is now known as the Addison Scheme. In July of that year it was decided to close the scheme down because the price of houses had got beyond control. In that month the average cost of a non-parlour house throughout the country was £665. As soon as this scheme was closed down and no more subsidy was payable the price began to fall. It went on falling, until in December of the following year it reached the bottom at £346. In the following year, 1923, there was introduced the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. Immediately the price began to go up. The subsidy under that scheme was equivalent to a capital sum of about £75 per house, and by January 1924 the price had gone up by £40, to £386.
Then came the ever lamentable event, when the party opposite came into office. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) had his turn,
and under his Bill the subsidy was increased from the equivalent of £75 to the equivalent of £160 or more than double, with the old effect again on the price, which immediately began to go up. In a month it had gone up by £52 and by October of that year we had reached a figure of £451 a house at which it then remained approximately. It so remained until December, 1926, and it was on those figures that I said to the House at the time that since in the past there had been this continual rise in the price of houses whenever the subsidy had been put up I drew the corollary that if we wanted to reduce the price of houses it could be done by reducing the subsidy.

Mr. THURTLE: Or by checking profiteering.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman and his party will now have an opportunity of formulating their ideas on that subject and it will be interesting from the purely philosophic point of view to see how they work out. I am merely discussing now the particular theory which governed my action in recommending the House to alter the rate of subsidy. From the time when the announcement was made that the subsidy would be reduced, although the subsidy was not reduced as a matter of fact until 1st October following, the price steadily went down until in the first quarter of this year it had dropped to £339. The right hon. Gentleman said that the price was somewhat lower than it had been. Yes, it is so, and that was certainly a mild way of putting it. As a matter of fact it has dropped, since the change of the subsidy, by no less than £112 a house.

Mr. SHILLAKER: The subsidy did not do that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In my opinion it did do it, or a great deal of it, and it is up to those who take a different view at any rate to show what in their opinion were the causes which brought about the extraordinary drop in the price. The right hon. Gentleman said to-day that he was not going to argue the question as to why the price of houses has fallen. He said that he had argued it before and was not going to repeat his statement. I was rather sorry that he took that line, but I can remember the arguments that he used, and it was possibly because he
remembered that those arguments were not very sound that he did not choose to repeat them to-day. I know that his principal argument was that really the price of houses is governed entirely by supply and demand.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Largely, not entirely.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman's principal explanation of the reason why the price of houses fell was that he said that the effect of the announcement that the subsidy was to be reduced was to diminish the demand for houses and consequently to diminish the price. But that would be true only if the diminution in the demand preceded the fall in price. As a matter of fact exactly the opposite was the case. The announcement of the cut to become operative in October took place in December, but in the first quarter of that year the price fell by as much as £23 a house. Therefore it will not do to tell us that it is the fall in the number of houses being built that really brings about the fall in price, because the price kept on falling although for months in that year the number of houses and the demand kept on steadily rising. The right hon. Gentleman had some other suggestions to make to account for the fall. He thought there had been a drop in the price of materials, in the cost of the labour, and some diminution in the size of the houses. I mention them in case any other hon. Member brings them up again to-day. I hope they will tell us exactly what they think are the figures which account for these several differences. So far as my information goes, if you put them all together and make liberal allowances, they will not come to as much as £50 a house. But we have here a difference altogether of £112 a house.
Now let me come to the argument upon which the right hon. Gentleman based his case for leaving the subsidy where it is on the 1924 houses. He says that it you make these breaks in the subsidy there is a scramble before the cut becomes operative, to finish as many houses as possible; there is a squeeze for getting done in one month what normally would have been done in two or three; and there is the reaction which of course must follow that building activity. I agree. I agree also that it is undesirable, and
that it would be very much better to have a steady and continuous rate of building, rising and rising steadily. But how are you to avoid it? If the difficulty is to prevent making any break in the subsidy, are we going on for ever with the subsidy hanging round our neck? Is it to be supposed that we are never to get back to anything like an economic rate of building? That is an altogether too pessimistic view, when we see that the result of one cut is to bring down the price of houses from £451 to £339. It would not be reasonable to suppose that another cut will bring as big a reduction as that. The law of diminishing returns must come in. But I am not at all convinced that we have yet reached the bottom of the market.
When, the right hon. Gentleman said that the number of houses has fallen to a lamentable extent compared with the year before, there are two points to which I would call attention. The first is that the year 1927 is not a fair year to take as the datum line. That was a year, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in which there was this tremendous rush of housing activity, which in a single quarter produced 90,000 houses, whereas the previous output had been about 40,000 a quarter. Therefore, if you are to compare future building with that year, you are making a comparison with an altogether abnormal year and a comparison which is no fair comparison at all. I do not know what you are to take as a fair datum line, but it has been generally suggested that about 100,000 houses would be sufficient in any given year to provide for the natural increase of population and the wastage which occurs by the demolition of old buildings or their falling out of habitation. If that be so, even in 1928 the result is by no means unsatisfactory, because of course the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave were figures of State-assisted houses only, and if you taken the figures of the total number of houses built in the country, you find that in 1928 there were no fewer than 166,415, and it is evident from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman that he anticipates that that number will be considerably exceeded this year.
The second point I put in the form of a question. It is a question to which I have never been able to get a satisfac-
tory answer or indeed to get any answer at all from the party opposite. This is the question: How can a cut in the subsidy possibly force local authorities to reduce their rate of building unless it has had the effect of putting up the price to them? Why should they reduce the rate of building unless they have to pay more for the houses than before? But I have shown that you have here a fall of £112 in the price of the house. The cut which was made is the equivalent of £25. Add to that the contribution by the local authority, of half, and you get a total of £37 10s. to be deducted from the £112. That leaves the local authorities better off by £74 10s. per house. In these circumstances, I say it is perfectly clear that if there has been a diminution in the rate of building it cannot be due to the effect of the subsidy.
It must be due to some other cause, and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health or anybody who is going to reply from the other side, to explain how they can maintain that the cut in subsidy forces local authorities to reduce the rate of building, when as a matter of fact they are so much better able to place houses at a cheap rate than they were before. The right hon. Gentleman is going to call a halt in the policy of the late Government. I say that on his own showing, and, according to his own argument, his present position is indefensible. If he believes in my policy he ought to allow the reduction of subsidy to go on, and if he believes in his own he ought not to leave the subsidy where it is but increase it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is playing for "safety first." He may suffer the fate of those who fall between two stools. But when he told us that he felt almost ashamed to trouble the Committee with so small a matter as this, I really thought he was diminishing the importance of his proposal beyond what was justified. If we look at the Memorandum, we find this:
The additional cost to the Exchequer consequent on the modification proposed will depend on the number of houses provided after 1st October, 1929. If 100,000 houses subject to special conditions are provided in the year to the 30th September, 1930, the additional cost to the Exchequer due to the proposed modification of rates of contributions will amount to £150,000 a year for 40 years.
If you capitalise that amount at 5 per cent. it means a capital sum of £27,000,000, and if the same policy is continued for five years, and the number of new houses remains about the same, you find that the capital sum involved amounts to £135,000,000. That is a very large sum of money, and while of course I do not think anybody would grudge the expenditure of very much larger sums than that, if we were satisfied that they were being usefully employed, I think that in this case it is practically certain that this money will not go for the benefit of those who are crying out for cheaper houses, but will merely be distributed in some way throughout the various branches of the building industry. I do not think I have any more to say this afternoon. When you get a change of Government you naturally expect a change of policy, and I recognise that hon. Members opposite are entitled now to put their ideas to the test of practice since they are in office. Having made my protest, I, for one, feel now disposed to see whether hard experience will not bring that conviction which solid argument has failed at present to convey.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: We have listened to two exceedingly interesting speeches setting forth two fundamentally opposite views between which the country is divided on this very vital question of how to provide houses at rents which the working classes can pay. I was not privileged to listen to the Debates in the last Parliament, but I remember very well those of 1924 when the same difference was discussed by the same right hon. Gentlemen. I remember very well the Act introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) which was supported by the Liberals and strenuously opposed by the Conservative party. As some indication of what was expected by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, as a result of the increased subsidy then granted, may I read the following quotation from a speech on the 1924 proposals by the Noble Lord who was formerly Member for Twickenham:
This Bill is a gigantic—I do not want to use the word 'fraud'—but a gigantic farce, put before the people of this country in order to induce them to believe that the Labour party will get houses under the pro-
visions of this scheme, while they will not get one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1924; col. 200, Vol. 175.]
That is what hon. Members on those benches were saying in 1924. What did that Act in fact produce? Did it or did it not produce houses? The extremely interesting figures quoted by the Minister of Health to-day are a complete answer to that question. In that year, only 36,000 subsidy houses were finished. When that Act—which was not going to produce a single house, according to some hon. Members, had been in force for three years, the number of subsidy houses finished in the three years was 212,000, or 173,000 more. That seems a complete answer to the Einstein theory which we have just had set forth, that increased subsidies do not mean increased building.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must not be misrepresented. I never said that. I said that the question of subsidy to some extent governed the price.

Mr. SIMON: As long as the right hon. Gentleman admits that increased subsidy means increased building, I am perfectly satisfied. In addition to the increase of subsidy the bargain made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston with the building trade was an exceedingly important part of the scheme in 1924. The subsidy alone would never have done what was accomplished. Up to that date, all efforts to build a reasonably large number of houses had failed because the building trade was not capable of carrying on its ordinary work in addition to building the houses. Therefore, the merit of that Act—and I should like to say that it was far and away the best thing which the party opposite, with our help, did during 1924—was that it increased the subsidy, it increased the demand, and it made a bargain with the building trade under which the building trade agreed that they would endeavour to extend their capacity to meet the increased demand. Whatever else may be said it must be agreed that the building trade met their side of the bargain magnificently. That is not too strong a word to use. The figures which the Minister has just given show this to be the case. All those extra houses were obviously not built by the people who were in the building trade in 1924, and if we look, not at the unemployment figures, but at the figures of
employment in the building and allied trades, it is interesting to note that in each year after the 1924 Act was passed, about 60,000 more men were drawn into the building material trades and contracting trades. In three years after the passing of the 1924 Act, 180,000 more men were employed in those trades than had been employed in them in 1924. I venture to think this is the biggest thing which any Government in this country has ever done for employment, and I am rather surprised that the Lord Privy Seal never even mentioned this question of housing in his long and interesting speech when he was dealing with the question of how to get more employment. Surely it ought to be possible to do something of the same sort now.
As long as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) left the 1924 Act alone, each year we were getting about 50,000 more houses than the previous year, and about 60,000 more men employed. Then the right hon. Gentleman began to apply his Einstein theory. He cut the subsidy from £9 to £7 10s. with the dramatic effect to which the Minister of Health has referred that instead of building over 200,000 houses the number of subsidy houses built was cut down to 100,000, and is still in the first five months of this year, at rather less than a rate of 100,000 a year. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that the raising of the subsidy in 1924 caused the very magnificent increase in the rate of building to which I have referred and that the cut of the subsidy in 1926 caused a drop, as a result of which, the laboriously built up figure of 200,000 has gone down to 100,000. I think it is only fair to conclude that if the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that action and had left the 1924 Act as it was, we should have had last year 100,000 more usbsidy houses built, and we should now be building at the rate of 200,000 a year instead of 100,000 a year. It is also fair to conclude that as a result of the application of these Einstein theories we have today in the country about 150,000 subsidy houses less than we should have had if the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing except ordinary administration and allowed a free course to the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston.
We have heard a great deal about the 800,000 houses built by the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) apparently still thinks he built them. We claim that the Act for which we share the credit with hon. Members opposite, was quite definitely the cause of the building of these 800,000 houses, and that the action of the right hon. Gentleman in 1926 was the cause of only 800,000 being built instead of the 950,000 which we ought to have had. Not content with cutting down the subsidy two years ago and reducing the rate of building from 200,000 to 100,000 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston apparently was so pleased with this result that he proposed to cut it down again to see what would happen. The declared policy of those who sit on these benches is to build 200,000 houses a year, of which probably 50,000 would be private enterprise houses; and if that programme is to be fulfilled, it means that we must have 150,000 subsidy houses built each year. How are we going to get this result? Obviously, not by cutting the £7 10s. subsidy to £6. That obviously would be disastrous and fatal. We are entirely in favour of maintaining the subsidy at its present figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we want to build this number of houses every year. I will come to the question of price in a moment. There is one point in the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Health which is rather disappointing. The last paragraph illustrating the probable result of maintaining the subsidy says that if 100,000 houses are built the cost will be £150,000 a year. I hope that does not mean that the Minister of Health is going to be content with building 100,000. Our policy is to build 200,000 houses a year, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to be content with only 100,000, it will be our duty to do what we can to stimulate him in dealing with this matter. I hope he will be able to assure us that he is not content with this figure of 100,000 houses.
I come to the question of price. I listened with great interest to the figures given by the Minister. A fact which we cannot dispute is that at the time of the Wheatley Act the non-parlour house cost £450, and it has now gone down to
5.0 p.m.
£339. It is admitted that about £50 of that reduction is due to the smaller size of house, and the real reduction is about £.60. It is perfectly true to say that, so far, every time the subsidy rose the price increased, and every time the subsidy was cut the price went down. But surely it would be unscientific, and contrary to every Einstein theory, to say that because a thing happens twice it always will and must happen. There is another very important condition which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten. He rather laughed at the question of supply and demand, but surely that is the fundamental fact—

Miss WILKINSON: Would the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee as to why he insists on continually dragging in Mr. Einstein?

Mr. SIMON: Because I am trying to deal with the matter scientifically. It is true that the price has come down to £339, practically the same figure, the rock bottom figure, as that to which it came down in 1922, and that is important, because building experts, to a great many of whom I have spoken, are of the opinion that that is the rock bottom figure and that there is now full and free competition. Competition can drive a figure down to a certain level, a level at which people can exist, but you cannot drive it down much below that level without everybody going bankrupt; and there are many people in the building trade in financial difficulties today. The figure has now come down low. If you increase the demand when that demand is beyond the capacity of the building trade to deal with it, then competition ceases to become effective, and prices may go up even to the extent to which they went up in 1919, but today conditions are totally different.
In 1927 the building trade expanded itself to the extent of building over 250,000 houses, including private enterprise houses, or 200,000 subsidised houses. They built up to their capacity. Now the number of houses has been cut down to 100,000, and competition is very keen indeed, and if you try to increase the number to 250,000 or 300,000 houses, prices will go up, but it seems reasonable to think that if you increase the
number up to 150,000, you are still well below the capacity of the building trade, and competition will still be full and free in effect. If you get a rapid increase up to that figure, there will be a slight temporary increase in price, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the question of the relation of supply and demand, which to us, on these benches, is the crux of the whole thing. The building trade is easily able to deal with 150,000 subsidy houses a year, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will do all he can to get up to that rate of building. I think it is reasonable to think—and I have consulted economists and experts of all kinds—that you can get back to 150,000 houses without any permanent increase of price above the present level.
One other point about prices. I take it that the Committee will agree that what we want is a family house, a three-bedroomed non-parlour house. A really economic local authority can build that house at about £400, including the land, that is to say, £350 for the house and £50 for the land and drains. The economic gross rent of that house is 14s. a week. By means of the subsidy of £7 10s., that is brought down to 10s. gross rent, and that is beginning to be a reasonable figure, within the reach of the ordinary artisan with a family.

Mr. MacLAREN: Does that include rates?

Mr. SIMON: Yes. A gross rent of 10s. is somewhere near the 9s. that hon. Members opposite were aiming at in 1924. It can be done by an economic authority at the present time, but can it be done by the method of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, the method of bringing down the price? He would have to bring down that price from £400 to £200, including the land and drains, in order to be able to let that house at 10s. You can go on cutting the subsidy for ever, but it is utterly out of the question, with keen competition in almost every branch of the trade, to build a decent three-bedroomed house, which to-day costs £400, for £200; and anybody who will take the trouble to do a simple arithmetical sum must admit that unless that house is built for £200, if you
abolish the subsidy, you cannot let it at 10s. gross rent. That is the crux of the whole thing.
We, on these benches, believe it is necessary to build a large number of houses at 10s. gross rent, and we do not believe that is enough if you are really going to tackle the slum problem. We believe there is a large number of unskilled workers in the slums, with families of three and four children, who are paying round about 7s. rent now. There are no houses into which they can move at reasonable rents, and you are never going to get those people, who are estimated to have about 2,000,000 children, out of the slums until you build decent houses for them at somewhere about 7s. gross rent. You have either to leave them in the slums, which we, on these benches, would never agree to do, or you have to build cheap houses for them. You cannot build a decent house even at 10s. by cutting the subsidy or by the method of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, and it is still more inconceivable that you can ever attempt to do it at 7s. All these things can only be done by modern methods, with a subsidy, and we look forward with great interest to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to introduce in the Autumn, because it will be a very difficult matter indeed to devise a method of housing slum dwellers, with probably 2,000,000 children, without undue expenditure.
In conclusion, I was very glad, as we all were, to hear the words of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Motion that this is by no means his idea of a complete Housing Bill. In fact, he went rather far in apologising for it as a small Measure. We regard it substantial Measure, but if it had been proposed as the sole Measure, we should have been exceedingly disappointed. As a step towards a larger and more comprehensive Bill, I very heartily welcome it, and I look forward, as I have said, with much interest to the Bill that we shall see in the Autumn.

Mr. WHEATLEY: My first words in this Debate are words with which I am sure the Committee will agree. I want to tender my hearty congratulations to my right hon. Friend and old colleague, the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), on his promotion and on the
concise, clear statement with which he introduced this Motion to the Committee. I also want to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), who has just addressed the Committee. All of us who have taken an interest in the housing problem rejoice to have him with us again, and our joy is not reduced by the fact that he won his seat at the expense of the other party, not at the expense of the party that sits on these benches. I could not wish for a finer eulogy of the Act for which I was responsible than the one to which we have listened this afternoon, and I should be very cold indeed if I did not feel thrilled with satisfaction when the hon. Member described, in beautiful language, language bristling with knowledge, the effort that I made during my period of office.
Having said that, I want to express my views rather clearly regarding the Measure that is now before the Committee. I am encouraged to be frank in my criticism by the appeal which was made by the Prime Minister on almost the opening day of this Session, when he invited the House to give free, frank, and fearless expression to its views, and to pool those views in the national interest, so that, as a National Council, we could from that pool get a real, sound, progressive, national policy. I take it that the appeal was not made merely to the Liberals and the Tories, because if the blend of national policy that we were to get from a mixture of Liberalism, Toryism, and our Front Bench was to be the national tonic, I should doubt very much the future health of the nation. I take it rather that the right hon. Gentleman took the view that not only the principal parties, but groups and individuals in this House, should be more candid in the future than they have been in the past, and I hope that his appeal will meet with a very generous response, because, if it does, it will have the undoubted effect of giving us in this House a higher standard of political honesty; and I am quite sure that the nation will not suffer from knowing exactly the views held by the Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, I take the opportunity of telling the Committee exactly what I think of this Measure.
The importance of the subject requires no elaboration. Housing is undoubtedly one of the questions that should be kept
in the very forefront of our national consideration. It is one that affects, daily and intimately, the lives of our people and the future of the community, and, therefore, I am glad that we are having this discussion before we retire for our holidays, in order that we may have the benefits of the free ventilation for which the Prime Minister appealed. I must say that I am rather disappointed with the Measure that has been submitted to us this afternoon. I followed my right hon. Friend rather closely. He was, as the hon. Member for Withington pointed out, rather apologetic, and he invited us to live contentedly on something that was going to happen at a later stage in the Session. I expected him to say that he intended, in the larger Bill that would be presented to the House, to undo the Tory action of 1926, but he just stopped short when he was becoming most interesting. He gave us any number of reasons why we should modify the cut of 1928, but he did not tell us that he had any intention of modifying the cut of 1926.
But the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out already, made it perfectly clear in his election campaign that he intended to undo the evil perpetrated by the Conservatives in 1926, and that he wanted to restore to health and vigour the Act of 1924. He declared himself as being very enthusiastic about that Act. He described it, in one of his speeches, as the crowning achievement of the Labour party, and, therefore, we hoped that when he would get into office we were going to have that crowning achievement restored to its early, vigorous, pristine glory. [Interruption.] We are told we are getting half a loaf, but we are getting modified the half of the Tory policy that has not yet come into operation. Yet all the criticism we have heard is against the Tory policy that is in operation, and I want to know whether the Tory policy that is in operation is not infinitely more serious, and, if injurious, infinitely more injurious, than the policy that has not yet been given effect to.
I do not think that my Government can even plead on this occasion that they are in office but not in power. The party are 100 per cent. stronger in the House and in the country than they were in 1924. The official Opposition are in a state of suspended animation. The
party below the Gangway have not expressed any hostility to the restoration of the subsidy of 1924, and I am sure that in the present Parliamentary circumstances, if the Government wished us to restore the subsidy of 1924, the Committee would agree rather than proceed to the defeat of the Government. The Minister of Health himself in a speech just prior to the General Election led us to believe that the subsidy would be restored. He told us at a meeting in Leeds that, as a result of the reduction in the subsidy—not the reduction which he is proposing to modify to-day, but the reduction in the subsidy which he is not proposing to modify—the country has 150,000 houses less for letting purposes than it would have had. Surely, we were led to believe by that speech that, when the Labour party came into office, the policy hat led to a reduction in the output of houses represented by the figure that I have mentioned would be reversed, and that effect would be given to the undoubted policy of the Labour party.
What are we asked to do this afternoon? We are asked to perpetuate the Act of 1926 and the policy which led to the deplorable reduction in house building that has been so eloquently described by the late Minister of Health and the hon. Member for Withington. This reduction is to continue, and the unemployment which is naturally associated with it is to continue; and I hope that the Committee will not leave out of account the very close relation between employment in this country and the housing question. I often think that many of our activities in regard to unemployment are perfectly ridiculous. The one thing in which there is a shortage at the moment is housing accommodation for the working classes. That does not apply to shipbuilding, coal mining or the steel industry, or anywhere else. In all other industries, unemployment is due to a surplus of the commodities which the industries produce, and you are running about looking for a way of placing the people who have been dispossessed by the huge output in those depressed industries. That, however, does not apply to housing. Housing is the one necessary of life of which, at the moment, there is a shortage.
What have we had this afternoon? There has been criticism about £150,000 per annum being spent upon a system
to produce more houses, while last week we were discussing a proposal to subscribe £1,000,000 a year for the employment of more or less slave labour in the British Colonies. While we have all this unemployment in the building industry, and this great need for a higher standard of houses among our people in our own country, we are sending a Minister to roam over Canada to try and get employment for the trained building industries workers in some perfectly unsuitable occupation in the Dominions. Can you imagine anything more absurd than that, when there are millions of people unable to get the maximum of health because of the standard of their housing accommodation? Instead of the Government facing that and applying common sense to it, and putting in trained workers to supply the needs of those people who require housing accommodation, they are wasting their time trying to train people to produce wheat in Canada or some other commodities in Kenya at a time when the world is baffled with the problem of how to dispose of its surplus wheat and surplus goods. It is high time we had an appeal to the House to throw aside party considerations and to put the State before party in order to enable us to get out of our national difficulties by applying to them a little political honesty.
In the speech of the late Minister of Health, there were some curious and conflicting statements. The right hon. Gentleman said that the way to reduce the cost of house building is to reduce the subsidy. Surely, the logic of that is to abolish the subsidy. If you believe that the subsidy leads to high prices, you are not acting justly in perpetuating that subsidy to the extent of a single penny. He rather pushed aside an hon. Member on these benches who asked, "What about Scotland?" After all, does not Scotland require their building costs to be reduced just as much as England? The problem in Scotland is even more intense and more extensive than in England, and yet the right hon. Gentleman, when he had it in his power to reduce building costs by reducing the building subsidy, reduced the subsidy in England and Wales, and presumably kept up prices in Scotland by maintaining the subsidy. When challenged on that, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not his act, but the act of his colleague
the secretary of State for Scotland. Are we to take it from that that we had two Cabinets sitting side by side, one presided over by the right hon. Gentleman and having its separate decisions, and another whose policy was promoted and sustained by the Secretary of State for Scotland? The thing is too absurd. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually very clear and complimentary to the House, should ask us to swallow an absurdity like that.
If that is not the case, how can you account for the reduction in prices? You can always get prices down by stopping house building. I am not here to defend the Addison scheme; I do not want to say anything about it, for I had no responsibility for it. We know that hon. Members opposite have nothing to gain from that illustration of the working of the law of supply and demand. They come along and say, "The nation cannot have houses, because the cost of the houses has soared to something in the neighbourhood of £1,400. The remedy for that is to stop building,"—in other words, the nation is to have no houses because somebody has put up the price. That does not seem to me to reach the bounds of human wisdom and political ingenuity. If I had had to deal with a problem like that, I would not have stopped building, but would have found means to stop the profiteering. It is easy to bring down prices if you decide to do without the goods, but that is not the problem. The problem is how to satisfy the nation's wants under a system that invites and promotes poverty. That is the problem to which the Government of the day should have directed their attention. But the right hon. Gentleman says, "How do you explain the reduction in prices that has taken place without building stopping?"
I listened to a rather dreary Debate last week on Safeguarding, and when Members opposite were challenged as to whether a tax on imports would have put up prices, they said, "No, because if you give any industry a guaranteed market, the mass production that will accrue from having that market will prevent prices going up." They quoted the motor industry, where a tax had been imposed on imports, and the price in this country, according to them, had been reduced. They said that the explana-
tion was that a guaranteed, secured market was given for motor cars, and employers were induced to put extra capital into the industry, and the result was that we had in Britain what has been obtained in the United States for the past 10 years. I agree that if you can give a guaranteed market for the goods of any industry to the people who are managing industry, output will increase to a limit beyond my comprehension. Anyone would agree with that, but whether the policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate will produce these results is another question.
In the housing problem, however, we are not baffled by imports and exports; very few people import houses. Under the policy of 1924, the door was opened to an output in housing material and housing construction that was absent from this country in any former period of its existence. The hon. Member for Withington explained that the Labour policy was not an Act of Parliament, but a first-class industrial organisation. It was, if I may say so, a course that might very well be adopted in dealing with many industries in the country.
What is the housing problem? After all, you cannot get away from the relation between the subsidy and the housing problem, which is mainly a financial problem. It is not merely a question of house building, essential as that undoubtedly is; it is a problem of giving to the working-class a healthy house for which they can pay the rent out of the wages which they receive at the moment from industry. The right hon. Gentleman asked when the subsidy will stop. If he can tell me when the system of paying wages that will not enable the people to supply the necessaries of life will stop, I will tell him when there will be no need of a subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman in one breath maintains a system that keeps down wages and makes the price of labour cheaper by every improvement in industry, and in another breath he asks when we shall cease to require the means of a healthy life. You are not giving that means of healthy life to-day, and, therefore, you have to deal with the problem to some extent by taking something by taxes out of the pockets of the rich, and using that to reduce the price of the
necessaries of life for the poor, and in that roundabout way to secure a better distribution of wealth.
There is no other way to do it. The whole system bristles with illogicality, unreasonableness and absurdities from top to bottom, and we have to deal with the system that we have. An ultimatum is presented to the Government by both sections of the Opposition that the one thing they have not to do is to introduce anything of a Socialist character. Capitalism has failed. I have never said that it was the party opposite or the party below the Gangway who had failed; it is the system which they operate that has failed, and it is bound to fail even under a Labour Government; and, when the duration of office of this Government ceases I hope that we will not be told that their failure to solve unemployment and other things is a failure of Socialism. You are insisting that Socialism shall not be applied to it. The one piece of Socialistic legislation that has been placed on the Statute Book is the Act of 1924. Members opposite have said that, as far as they can manage it, it will be a long time before there is an increase in the family. We must, therefore, go on with this one little Socialist child while they control the House of Commons.
I am sorry that the subsidy of 1924 is net to be continued. What was the understanding which we came to with the local authorities in 1924? It was that the policy should be to provide houses for the workers at a rent which they could pay. That was the policy of the 1924 Act. We were then paying for undesirable houses, and we decided that if they could not give good hefty houses at that rent the £9 subsidy would be paid. We appealed to the local authorities, with all the influence we possessed, to see that the first reduction in building costs should go to the reduction of rent. We have built hundreds and thousands of houses since that time, but they have not always come into the possession of the class for which they were intended. The housing problem cannot be solved while there is any considerable number of families who cannot afford to pay the rent which is being asked. It is no use talking about the proposal we are discussing being a solution of this problem, because it is no solution at all.
We said to the local authorities: "The first reduction that will take place in costs will go to bringing the rents of these houses down to the object which the Labour Government have had in view "—and the local authorities agreed—"and the following reduction will go to relieving the local authorities of the contribution that they are bound to make towards the subsidising of the houses." The tenants were to get the first benefit and the local authorities were to get the next benefit, and only when the tenants had good houses at rents which they had been paying for bad houses and the full burden had been taken off the local authorities, were the rich taxpayers of this country to be relieved of the housing subsidy. What has happened? Exactly the reverse policy has been adopted. Immediately a reduction took place in the cost of building the Conservative Government applied that reduction to the relief of the rich taxpayers by reducing the subsidy. The tenants still have to pay high rents and the local ratepayers are still compelled to pay high rates, but the super-taxpayers are having their contributions to the State reduced. That is exactly the opposite policy from that which was contemplated in 1924.
My criticism of the Labour Government this afternoon is that they have perpetuated the old policy. The subsidy has been reduced, the super taxpayer has been relieved. All the evils which have crept into the reduction of the subsidy are evils which have come from the reduction which took place as a result of the Act of 1926. The 1926 Act still stands. That is the finest testimony which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health can desire. We who in 1926 condemned him in terms which were sometimes vicious and often bitter for making that reduction in the subsidy come forward now and say: "Now that we are in office and in power we will perpetuate the policy you adopted in 1926." Can you imagine a greater tribute being paid to your opponent than that which is involved in this policy? The Government may throw their hats in the air and say they are modifying the Order of 1928, but they are modifying something which has not yet come into operation, something which has not yet done any injury; they are only destroying something which I believe would have
injured the provision of houses in this country. The Government have no right to make the people believe that they are this afternoon undoing the evil which they blamed the late Government for having committed in 1926. If that resulted, as the Minister of Health says, in a loss of 150,000 houses in two years, then the perpetuation of the policy will lead to the loss of 150,000 houses in every two years that follows. The Government are responsible for the future loss; the late Government are responsible for the past loss.
Let us be quite clear about those things and, as I said at the beginning, let us be quite frank and quite honest. My hon. Friends from Scotland will be told, of course, that they have nothing of which to complain, because the cut that was to take place in Scotland under the 1928 Order will not take place, and they have still the 1924 subsidy. Is it necessary to warn them that we cannot continue one scale for England and Wales and another scale for Scotland? That may be done temporarily. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did it temporarily. He left the change out of the 1926 Order, but included it in the 1928 Order. If the Government are going to follow the same line of reasoning, they will include it in the 1930 Order. They have to bring England up or bring Scotland down, but there is no evidence in this Measure that the Government possess the necessary courage to level England up, and certainly the Government will be weaker in 1930 than they are in 1929. Hon. Members opposite will play with the Government until they have discredited them in the country. This is the day of the Government's power. To-day the Government could do anything. To-day the Government are not showing the courage that their supporters on these benches expect. If they displayed that courage and went on with their own policy, the parties opposite would not dare to wound them, however willing they might be to strike; but, after the Government have disappointed their friends by 12 months of this halting, half-way legislation, as one of my friends described it, and have been discredited in the country, then, 12 months from now, there will be no party in this House poor enough to do them honour.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of interest and, indeed, with sympathy to the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Those of us who have been through the successive phases of the housing movement since the War know only too well how he struggled to bring the housing question down to the level of which he has been speaking this afternoon. I may not be right, but I believe that he was perfectly genuine all the way through in his belief that his proposals would add to the number of houses built and also lower the cost. But he is not justified in taking only one-half of his proposals when considering what has happened. He speaks of the 1924 Act as if it were his complete scheme, but his scheme included dealing with profiteering, tackling the rises in the price of building materials and the costs of building, and bringing about a reduction. He must remember, as so many of us do, the bitter experience of that time. His scheme was a combined scheme; it was not merely a scheme for the building of the type of houses which came under the 1924 Act. There was also the Building Materials Bill—which did not materialise—which embodied his proposals for securing an arbitrary, comprehensive and strong grip on the building trades and forcing them to keep down to a certain price. His method, carried out in its entirety, is a method of absolute compulsion, compulsion not only in one direction, but absolute compulsion. He wished to apply that compulsion to the building trades complete, including those engaged in making building materials, the building operatives and the contractors. The Measure was brought in, but was found to be inoperable; it was found impossible to get it through in Committee upstairs. The Bill received its death blow and it was necessary to come back to an agreed solution between the building trades, the Government and the country as a whole.
His failure to secure that compulsion is the real fallacy in his argument. His argument would sound splendid if compulsion could be applied. I am sure there is one ruler above all others whose power he would like to have in his hands, and whose powers are necessary to the solution of his problem, and that is the ruler of Italy at the present time. Splendid as are the possibilities open to all of us for
fulfilling our dreams if we had the despotic and autocratic powers suggested by the right hon. Member for Shettleston, I am afraid such powers will never be obtained in this country. That is no solution of the question, and it is a proposal which cannot be defended by arguments from the other side. The Government seem to be wavering between two arguments, one of them put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston which has only been half carried into law, and the other the argument which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). I should like to deal a little more fully with the actual Motion because I know it would be out of place Co argue the Socialist proposition, which I am afraid would be ruled outside the terms of this Motion. I want to deal with the real requirements of the situation and to recognise, as we must recognise, whether we sit on the Front Benches above or below the Gangway, that we all want to increase the number of houses and to reduce the cost as much as possible. If we agreed with that argument, then we at once clear away a lot of declamatory rhetoric which, unfortunately, impedes our vision.
We are considering a business proposition, namely, whether we are going to build up to, and not beyond, the proper amount, and in what way are we going to reduce the cost. We must begin by pointing out what is the cost. I am afraid that the public are often deceived by the idea of a reduction from £7 10s. to £6 in the subsidy or from £9 to £7 10s. per house. I think we ought to be put into possession of the real proportions of the money we are taking by dealing with the gross figure. We say, for example, that the figure proposed involves an additional cost of £150 a year for 40 years, or a total of £6,000,000. Here we are looking only at the housing subsidies. The total cost of the original subsidy for English houses was £6 for 20 years, making £120 as the complete subsidy. Under the 1924 Act the subsidy was £9 for 40 years, making £360 for every house. The right hon. Member for Shettleston wishes us to go back to that subsidy, and he argues that it is criminal not to find £360 at once for every single house, or £500 for houses in agricultural parishes. The right hon. Gentleman
would at once increase the amount paid to the builders by that sum, and in the case of Scotland he would increase the subsidy to a similar sum of £360 and £500 in rural areas.
It is one of the faults of the presentation of this question to the public that they do not realise the actual sum that has to be paid out of the Treasury, because it is not capitalised. I do not think that the public fully realise the total amount which is actually being spent upon housing. All medical officers—and I am one—recognise the gravity of the housing question, and we fully recognise that it is by improving the housing of the working classes that you can do more than in any other way, with the exception of education, to prevent the ill-health of future generations. Therefore, it is immensely important for us to get proper housing, but we must consider the cost. I do not think the cost of housing or the amount being spent upon it is allowed to influence the policy of the right hon. Member for Shettleston. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government should not keep the subsidy at the lowest cost to which it was reduced by the 1926 Order, but why should the subsidy be kept at the cost introduced by the right hon. Member for Shettleston? If it is true that the money is found only by the rich taxpayers, why did the right hon. Gentleman not take more money in order to lower the cost, and not limit the amount to £500 in agricultural parishes?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It was due to my well-known moderation.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: According to that, it might be argued that the proposal we are considering is due to the moderation of the present Government. It is all a question of moderation. Even the right hon. Member for Shettleston agrees that there is a limit to the amount we can spend, although he has no sympathy with the British taxpayer. I think it is also admitted that these charges are reflected upon the workers in the last resort. We have to meet the point which the right hon. Member for Shettleston seems to have avoided—that there is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent. We should also consider the point whether we are spending that money rightly. Hon. Members should think for a moment of the gigantic
amount of money which is being spent upon subsidies and housing. I should not object if we were getting our money's worth, but I am bound to say, as a medical officer of health, that there are any number of practical health schemes being turned down because they will cost perhaps £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £500,000, for the simple reason that the Government cannot afford to carry them out, and yet they are now proposing to increase the housing subsidy to the extent of £6,000,000 a year.

Mr. W. THORNE: You will save it in another way.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There appears to be either ignorance or indifference to the housing question, or else there is an ignorant defence of it regardless of the amount of money spent, to which we are opposed. We medical officers of health urge as strongly as we can that the Treasury should reduce the vast sums which were spent by the late Government upon housing in order to provide more money for other important health services which are calling out for treatment. I think hon. Members in their heart of hearts must realise that we are spending vast sums of money on one thing only, when there are many other matters which are more important as affecting the health of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Bournemouth the other day, gave a very interesting address to the National Savings Movement, and to the surprise of a good many people he talked about the wonderful thrift of these people and the extraordinary savings that have been possible by the working classes during the 10 years which had elaspsed since the War. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded to housing, and he used language which, to the surprise of many people, showed that he had an essential preference for houses owned and occupied by the working classes. That argument will show the supporters of the Government why we are taking a stand against this subsidy. We shall take a stand against subsidies, because we have maintained again and again that we want to see the working classes self-dependent and able to pay their own way.
The right hon. Member for Shettleston has argued in favour of continuing the subsidy until the workers are able to pay
their own way. We agree that the workers should be able to pay their own way, but surely it is not the right way of enabling people to make both ends meet, to grant subsidies or doles. On this side of the Committee, like most other people, we object to any system that involves doles. We are working for their abolition, and we hope to sec that brought about some day. I know it is a long process. Meanwhile, we want to help any movement that will enable people to get rid of doles, and I am sure that is the view of the supporters of the Government. Hon. Members opposite frequently use the word "dole" in a bitter sense in their attacks upon the capitalist system, but we must recognise, and hon. Members opposite must recognise, that housing is a necessity of life. Therefore, we wish to help in every way we can such admirable movements as that of the House Building Society, which has made such great strides, and the system of private ownership, small dwellings acquisition, and so on, which have been helped forward by all parties in this House. We have to recognise that the ideal is to do away with the subsidy, but without lessening the rate of house-building or increasing the cost.
6.0 p.m.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has put the case quite clearly. We have had a slow and steady but definite reduction in cost and an increase in the amount of building during the last few years. The building industry has always said that steadiness in reduction of prices or increase of operations is best for trade, and every industry says the same, so that if you have for one reason or another a big subsidy, you can only reduce it slowly. If, therefore, the subsidy is to be reduced, let it be reduced slowly, and let the reduction be continued always at the same kind of rate. You may increase your rate a little, or lessen it a little, but let it be continued steadily, and the other consequences will follow in the same direction. We have got a reduction in cost, as everyone realises—even my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), whose interest and work in housing we all recognise to be of a high order. He recognises, as we do, that there has been this reduction in cost coincidently with the reduction
in the subsidy. It may have been, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, only partly due to the reduction in subsidy, or it may not be due to the reduction in subsidy at all, but it was coincident with it, and it is cheering to all housing reformers that that reduction in cost has been going on and the reduction in subsidy has been going on. The two things that we want to hold together are the continued reduction in cost and the continuance of the rate of building. Why docs my hon. Friend the Member for Withington say that it has now reached finality? That is the one point in his speech which cannot be defended philosophically, politically or economically. I do not think that he himself would defend the idea that the reduction in cost has reached finality. We none of us believe that finality has been reached, either in the cost of housing or in the cost of living generally, and we have to look forward to the reduction continuing.
The process, therefore, which has been carried on during the past six years, of gradually reducing the subsidy, is one that should be defended and continued, and I feel, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, that it is a pity that it is not going to be carried on in the way that he intended. His proposals were eminently pacific and in the sense of the Prime Minister's appeal to the House, to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, that we should put away party feeling in these matters and act as a council of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, when he came back into office in 1925, did not simply repeal the Act of 1924 and modify his own Act of 1923 as he thought necessary, but both grew together until the harvest, and the harvest was obtained from both. The result has been splendid, and we who are interested in housing recognise the good of the 1924 Act as well as the bad, and the bad of the 1923 Act as well as the good; the two have been working together. We want to carry on that process of working together.
The matter that is before us to-day is really not one of housing, but one of expenses. I believe that we shall not get the advantages suggested from a continuance of the subsidy at the present rates, and that, from this extra £6,000,000
which we are voting, we shall not get a reduction in cost. Probably a good deal of the increased subsidy will go elsewhere. The experience always is that everyone glues on to a subsidy where they can, and that it goes into all sort of circles where it is not required. If we on this side do not oppose this proposal, we nevertheless do not think it is wise or necessary or advantageous for housing, but, indeed, disadvantageous. We think that what is more advantageous is that the public generally should learn the result from the Government that they have sent into power, and that they should find out for themselves the truth of what we believe and maintain, namely, that those results which they expect will not follow from the housing subsidy.
One practical proposal is my alternative, which is that subsidies are necessary in certain areas and not in others, that they are necessary in certain cases and not in others, that they are necessary for certain classes of the community and not for others. If you give a gross subsidy like this, nine-tenths of it is wasted, and only one-tenth is useful. I have the authority, although it is not necessary to go into it now, and perhaps it would not be right to do so, of a large body of influential opinion that has itself recommended the application of a rent subsidy by local authorities where it is most required. If this £150,000 a year, or £6,000,000 in all, were given to the new local authorities under the Local Government Act, to use, whether in reduction of rent or in other directions, for the relief of householders who really need it, you would get 10 times the value for this money that you are going to get from this housing subsidy, and yet it is introduced in this form by a Government who believe that it will be of help in the housing question. I shall not vote against this proposal, although I think that it is a very unwise use of the nation's money.

Dr. MORGAN: In addressing the House for the first time, I hope that anything I may say that is not strictly in accordance with the customs of the House may be pardoned, out of consideration for the fact that I am a new Member. We have just listened to a speech from one who belongs to the same profession as myself, and the Committee will therefore excuse me if I say at the outset that we
have, as we have in politics, two opposite views in the medical profession, the one reactionary and the other progressive.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Which is which?

Dr. MORGAN: I have listened with great care and attention to what the hon. and gallant Member has said, and he will excuse me if I say, as another member of a profession in which we are accustomed to conciseness, definiteness and order, that I was surprised at the vagueness, indefiniteness, and almost in-coherency of what he has just said. The bulk of his speech meant that the housing policy which is proposed to-day—a housing policy which was put in operation for a considerable time by the Government which he supported—is an extravagant policy. The hon. and gallant Member says that the expenditure on housing which is now proposed is wrong. The late Minister of Health asked the question, "Is the subsidy always to go on?" Our answer is, "Yes, as long as overcrowding goes on." We have had a speech from an expert on the housing question, the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), and anything that he has written or said will always be received with great respect by those who know anything about this question, either from the social or from the medical point of view. In order, however, that the Committee may have some idea of the conditions, I would like to read two quotations from the Report of a Special Committee appointed by the National Housing and Town Planning Council on the subject of overcrowding. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) has talked of this policy as an extravagant policy, and one on which we are spending too much money—in a country which is not poor. Here is a quotation from the Report to which I refer:
Glasgow slums are described in the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health for 1926. The commissioner appointed to hold the local inquiry writes as follows:
'It is impossible to draw any picture which could adequately describe the conditions under which we found human beings living in practically the whole of the houses which we inspected. There were, it is true, differences in degree, but all were hopelessly unfit for habitation …. The majority of the houses were dark, many of the tenants having to burn gas all day, winter and
summer …. Damp was present everywhere, the walls and ceilings in a large number of houses being literally soaking. Everywhere we noticed an almost total lack of sanitation, conveniences being few, and, for the most part, out of repair and in some cases leaking down the stairs and even into the houses …. Dilapidation is rife throughout the areas; ceilings are falling down, woodwork is rotting away, there are holes in the walls of houses through which the street can be seen, and the plaster work of the walls is loose and broken.'
We know of these conditions, and that is why we want money spent on housing. I could bore the Committee with such quotations, and yet hon. Members opposite insist on talking about the extravagance of spending money on housing. Here is another quotation:
A very revolting feature of the slums is that the majority of the houses are infested with bugs. Some time during the long life of these old houses the pests have found an entrance probably through the carelessness of a past tenant, and it is practically impossible to eradicate them. Crumbling plaster and broken woodwork afford adequate hiding places in which they breed indefinitely. The most careful tenant can only keep the number down by constant vigilance, killing those which appear on the surface of the walls and ceiling. Rats are also a source of trouble in many old houses"—
as in politics—
into which they easily find their way through defective drains and broken floors. The Report of the Scottish Board of Health already quoted states that the houses in the Glasgow slum are 'a hunting-ground for vermin of every description. Fleas, of course, abound, but we found also that practically every property we inspected was bug-ridden. The tenants complained that they could get no peace from these pests, which drop upon their faces and crawl over their persons and their beds at night, and which fall into their food during the day.'
I wonder whether, if bugs fell into the food of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, he would say that the spending of money on housing was an extravagant policy? The hon. and gallant Member, in his final remarks, made an excellent suggestion, which, however, was not his own, although he said it was his alternative policy. It is well known, and has been published in many books on slum clearance. He suggested rent subsidies or family allowances, but that is the only contribution that he made to the discussion. Here we have a professional man who has been a medical officer of health, and who ought to know
about housing conditions, coming here and making a speech as he made, at a time when people are crying out for houses, when they are living in conditions of overcrowding, when what we call family life is practically in abeyance, when the Housing Acts are inoperative, when children's whole moral is being disturbed by the conditions under which they exist.
I was surprised at the speech of the late Minister of Health. He has a reputation outside the House, and one is told that when one comes to the House and hears him speak one will be convinced that he is a real authority. What has he said to-day? I listened with avidity to what he was saying to see whether I could get any words of wisdom from him, but I found nothing. He tells us that 1927 was an abnormal year. He does not tell us what year was normal. He asks, "Will the subsidy benefit those who are most in need of houses?" Those who need houses most are not at present benefiting most from the housing policy. That is the real problem to which we have to bend our minds, to see how those who are down-trodden, the lowest down, those whose wages are so low that they cannot afford to pay the rent we ask for our subsidy houses, should be helped in some way by rent subsidies or family allowances. I congratulate the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) criticised him, but give him time. We know he wants time to turn round. We know that he promised something in the matter of slum clearances and I only hope, in dealing with them, he will give some consideration to the question of family allowances and rent subsidies. The late Minister of Health has dealt with the finance of recalcitrant local authorities, but he has not dealt with those local authorities who have not carried out their housing duties. I know a local borough council with a majority in favour of the policy he holds which has not built a house under the Wheatley Act or the Chamberlain Act. The only houses they have built were under the Addison Act. We are told the policy of the Government is extravagant. We do not think it is. We want the Minister to increase the subsidy still further and to see still more houses built, and the tenant who wants some home life will bless his name.

Mr. KEDWARD: I congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on a speech which showed a good deal of insight and knowledge of the question, and was marked by a tone of deep hope. There are one or two questions I should like to ask, because I realise the difficulties, having served as chairman of a housing committee, and having been up against a good many of the questions that are troubling the people who are trying to solve this problem. I should like to feel that we could have the subsidy of 1924, but I should like to be assured by the Minister that the subsidy is really going to benefit the people for whom it is designed. We are paying a subsidy and there are heaps of people who do not need subsidised houses who are living in them. I will give two illustrations. A woman in one of the poorer parts of London came to me and asked if I would intervene, because she had been turned down by the London County Council in reference to her application for a house. They were living in two rooms, and they have five children. She was asked what were her husband's earnings, and said they were £3 3s. a week. The answer was that it was quite impossible for them to pay 17s. 6d. a week, their wages were not sufficient; so they went back to their two rooms with their five children. A friend of mine, a schoolmistress earning £300 a year, taking with her a friend earning £200, gets a subsidised house and gets outdoor relief in bricks and mortar for 40 years. Next door to them is an ex-naval pensioner whose income is £300 or £400 a year and who runs a little car. Beyond that is an ex-inspector. All three of them are side by side in subsidised houses.
If the money is to be spent along those lines and you are going to let the houses to people whatever their income, and get people with £200 or £300 or £400 a year battening on the State, and receiving a rent subsidy for 40 years, that is not Socialism, as I understand it, and it is certainly not capitalism. That sort of thing is lunacy. We want to examine the matter with a very great deal of care, and see that we are not pouring out the resources of the country upon people who do not need it and have never asked for it. There should be some careful examination of the incomes of the
people to whom you are going to let the subsidised houses. Unless you do that, you are going to condemn these poor people for whom some of us want to speak to years more of dwelling in slums. During the next five or six years some of us hoped that this policy would have touched the question. Fur many of them there is not a gleam of light through the long dark years and this is a thing that is urgent. You want to begin here and now. There is one small area in London with 7,000 registered applicants and 400 new notifications every year. Ought we not to begin with those people? Ought we not really to say they shall have preference over all others? I should like an assurance that we are to have a bold policy. I was hoping we should have had some indication of the lines upon which it is going to travel.
Another question on which I should like to hear something from the Minister is that of sub-letting. I was responsible for getting a tenant into a subsidised house. They were poor, and the difficulty was that they had only about 15s. worth of furniture and, as they could not make it go round they confined themselves to the same space they had occupied before, and let the remainder of the house. When I heard of this I went to them and found out that the sub-tenant was paying nearly as much as they were, so that they were living rent free. I said "I do not think you ought to do this." The tenant said, "I have had it done on me for the last seven years, and now I am going to get a bit of my own back." Are you going to let that kind of thing go on? If so, it is going to wreck the whole of your policy. There should be safeguards with regard to people with incomes adequate to pay for their own houses, and you should stop this system of sub-letting at high rates. If we can do that, we shall make some progress.
Now I want to refer to rural housing. There is no proposition before the Committee, even with an increased subsidy, which is going really to touch the question of housing in rural areas. What are you going to do for people who have an income of 30 odd shillings a week? [An HON. MEMBER: "Give them a rise!"] It is all very well to say that, but you have to deal with the matter. There is no proposition before the Committee to give them a rise. I have been
into these dirty little insanitary houses in the country, many of them with the rain coming through the roof, and there is an urgent need for a small type of house suitable for pensioners who do not want much accommodation, and others living in villages. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise some means of satisfying the urgent needs of housing. The country has not had its fair share allotted to it of the houses that have been built during the last few years. I hope the people in the rural areas will be considered, and I hope we shall cut out some of the people who are living in subsidised houses, and when you have done that, you will have a great deal more money to spend on the people who really need them and whose case is urgent. I hope we shall not go on wasting the resources of the country on people who can well afford to pay their own way, and confine our attention to giving the subsidy and increasing it to the amount necessary to give these people a chance of a decent, happy and clean way of life.

Mr. MacLAREN: I have heard all the speeches that have been delivered so far, and I find there are three points of view that have been put. I am not so sure that I agree with any one of them. I consider that the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) is one of the most dangerous Members of the House. He is disinterested, and well-intentioned, but wrong-minded. There is no man more dangerous in society than the man who does not know exactly how to solve a problem and is bent on doing it the wrong way. His speech was a great disappointment to me, because I have heard so much about him. It may be that he has forgotten some of the brilliant ideas he used to have. To-day I listened, but nothing was forthcoming. Much that he said has been said many times before. It seemed to me he was rather going along the line of a great expenditure on subsidies without regard to the taxpayers. The hon. Member said something was wanted on the lines of the Act of 1924. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is always interesting, and when one accepts his premises his logic is devastating, but when his premises are wrong
his logic is a mental exercise, and he never arrives anywhere.
The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Health—he and I have never agreed in this House, and I do not suppose that we ever shall—maintained that the reduction of the subsidy was shown in the cost of houses. When the subsidy fell, the price of houses also fell. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston when he said: "If the reduction in the subsidy is reflected in the price of houses, namely, that prices fall, then why not be logical and wipe out the subsidy altogether?" Hon. Members opposite, if they were on this side of the Committee, would not have removed this subsidy; they would have been afraid. They know full well what constitutes the housing problem just as well as Members of the Labour party. What is the housing problem? It is a question of low wages and high costs. That is it, boldly and bluntly stated. When you see people go into respectable, model, up-to-date houses, you find that their wages are not sufficient to meet their obligations. It should be the first function of wise administration to cut down whatever contributory causes there may be so as to bring the houses within the ambit of those who receive very ordinary wages.
May I give to the Committee my own experience in Stoke-on-Treat? I am a Member of the Corporation of that town, and we have the Government subsidies. I never agreed with the subsidies. Subsidies are like Protection: they feed people who ought to be dead. When we knew that these subsidies were coming along, my colleagues on the council and I set to work to see how we could build, not one of your accursed non-parlour houses, but a three room and kitchen house, with bathroom, so that it might be let at 10s. a week. When we added the rates, we found that the rents of the houses had to be increased to 19s. 6d. per week, throwing the houses right beyond the grasp of those who desired them. We tried to cut out certain things, and found that with rent and rates included we could bring the amount down to round about 15s. 6d. a week. Here is a contributory cause upon which I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite who sits in this House as a Liberal would have followed his leader. I remember the attitude of the Leader of the Liberal
party many years ago when I was a Member of that party and took an active part in it. We did not then talk about subsidies. We did not believe in the idea that there was a bottomless pocket, called the taxpayer's pocket, out of which—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I would remind the hon. Member that the only question which can be discussed on this Motion is the continuance of the subsidy or not. The hon. Member is not entitled to give a dissertation upon the land or rating problem.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am not touching the land problem, but the herecy which is now prevailing on the benches opposite. I commend the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to the hon. Member—the speeches delivered between 1909 and 1910. If he will read them, I shall not be accused of getting out of Order. He did not keep up the old Camp-bell-Bannerman traditions to reduce or to remove whatever contributory causes there were which were enhancing the price of houses. When the Conservatives were on this side of the House, they observed that prices were inflated by contributory causes and by local rates. They brought in a great de-rating scheme. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the present Minister of Health got up in their places when they were on the Opposition side of the House and appealed to the then Conservative Government to extend their de-rating benefactions to housing—a most natural thing to do. As far as this discussion has gone, there has not been a single word said about that matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it had been brought in, it would have been out of order.

Mr. MacLAREN: I claim that the rates where levied on houses are one of the reasons why the cost of housing is higher than it ought to be. If the late Government had been bold enough to extend their policy of de-rating to the housing of the people, they would have done something towards securing the solution of the problem of housing, which would have been more fundamental than this Fabian conception of pouring
public funds into subsidies. From my experience as a member of a corporation, I find that when the subsidy was high the ramp was greatest among the builders. The moment they heard that there was a big subsidy in sight, they got ready. That will always happen—I do not blame them, human nature being what it is—the moment the Government come along with subsidies. I see signs of it in the Press at this moment. I almost observe a sort of close co-operation beginning to form itself in some areas between certain brick building fraternities and dealers in building materials, getting ready because my right hon. Friends are in power, and they believe that a new subsidy is coming along. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not believe that it is possible to solve this problem by an intemperate, overbalanced attempt to do something which might contribute, not to housing, but to this trade impetus which makes housing impossible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were very reactionary, and that what they were doing by this Motion to-day was nothing short of perpetuating the cuts of 1926.
It is an easy thing when you are not on the Front Bench on the Government side of the House to be fiercely critical. I could be critical too, but I want to have compassion on my friends on that Bench. I am hinting at the lines which I would take. I would cut off whatever contributory cause of the inflation in the cost of housing there is, and I have said that rating is one of them. I will say quite frankly that I do not like the tendency or indication of the Motion which is on the Paper to-day. There was much in the speech of the Minister of Health to-day to indicate that he was foreshadowing possible schemes which the Government were likely to bring in, and which, I must confess, left me a little apprehension. But having to come into office, having made pledges in the country and not having had time to cut down the thicket and growth of various Acts of Parliament passed by the last Government, there is nothing left for the Government to do in the short period of time between now and the rising of the House than to bring in a Motion like this. Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggest for a moment that
within a short time, from to-day until the rising of the House, the Labour Government can bring in an alternative policy cutting athwart all that was done by him and his colleagues in the late Government? I do not think that that is possible. I am not altogether condoning what has been said, and to-day I am partially critical. At least, I have to extend sympathy in a new situation.
At the same time, I must hint that the road of subsidies is a disastrous road to pursue. I still hope that there are hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches who have the old Radical idea with regard to this housing problem, and who will not be carried away with this idea of subsidies and State pampering. I hope that there are Liberals who still believe in the old Radical policy of uprooting monopolies and giving the natural growth of houses and other things a chance. I still hope that there are some hon. Members generally critical enough to assist me in the near future in trying to get down to the real cause of bad housing. I have said that it is due to bad wages and high costs. I have yet to learn that subsidies increase wages and lower costs. I can prove, as I think any hon. Gentleman in this House can prove, that subsidies inflate costs by encouraging "rings" and monopolies in building materials, and lower wages by the amount of taxation levied to create the funds necessary for the subsidies to be distributed through the State. The other day, when watching the processes of the subsidy in Stoke-on-Trent, we observed this. The State collects the subsidy in the form of taxation by very expensive means in London and sends it to our Division for housing. We send the rate collector along to value the house, and, as soon as he has valued the house, he claps the rate on to the house. At the present time, the subsidy is not solving anything. It is childish to the last degree. It is almost distressing when one realises that housing experts in this House still believe in this nonsense. It is distressing to think that there are housing experts here giving voice to sentiments of this character.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I should not desire to take up the time of the Committee upon this subject were it not that I feel that I have a direct contribution to
make by reason of a lifelong experience. At the outset, may I claim the sympathy of the Committee, because I labour under two great disadvantages. First, I am one of a race that is celebrated for its retiring disposition. I am a Welshman, though not of the type represented by the Leader of the Liberal party. Secondly, I sat at the feet of a very prominent Member of this House, the late Sir William Harcourt, nearly 30 years ago when he was Member for the West Monmouth Division he prophesied that I should one day become a Member of this House. It has been a very long time coming. I can only blame the electors for that, but hon. Members will understand the sentiment and the romance that influences me as I address the House for the first time. I have looked through the glass doors of this House for nearly 30 years. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of a well-known hymn, and say:
I looked at Heaven, and longed to enter in.
Contrary to the usual experience, my realisations are far exceeding my expectations. I find an air of Heaven present, partly because of the Godlike patience that you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and Mr. Speaker, manifest and, partly, because there is an air of eternity about the Debates.
I will now drop down from the celestial to the terrestrial. I happen to be a building contractor. That is why I have risen to take part in the Debate. I would like to say, as respectfully as I can, that I have no sympathy with the scientific, astronomical or financial suggestions made by the ex-Minister of Health, and by several hon. Members. If houses can be built for £339, non-parlour type, or £400, as the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) said, there is to reason why the sum cannot be kept down to that figure, and that the subsidy shall go, not to the profiteer, but in direct reduction of the cost of the house at this moment. In my profession—I always call my trade a profession, and it is a respectable profession—a man has to be, not only a jack of all trades, but a master of all trades. He has to learn the art of using the spade. He has to be able to do the work of a labourer, and he has to be an expert down even to the work of a lawyer.
Everybody well knows that, as a class, we builders are pre-eminently benevolent and philanthropic. No body of men in this country labours as we do for the good of the community, without hope of reward.
The Minister of Health, for whom I have respect, used the word "scamping" in regard to building work, and he was right; but we only scamp when Members of this House compel us to scamp. Very rarely will you accept a tender unless it is the very lowest. What are we to do? We have our families to keep and we have our rates to pay. If we do not always comply with the specification, blame yourselves for upholding a system of which we are such slaves. If, under the shadow and expectation of a subsidy—I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) on this point—we gradually raise our prices, and if instead of quoting £339 to a local authority, now that a Labour Government has come in, and the wheels will go round again, and we run up our prices until within six months we shall be quoting £1,000, can you blame us? We are the exponents of private enterprise, which is the life blood and gospel of both the Opposition parties. If we seek whom we may devour, please do not blame us. We are the helpless victims and you, gentlemen, in particular, compel us to practise the art of self-preservation. I should like to refer to the builders' merchants, who act as middlemen between the manufacturers and men like myself. I absolve them almost entirely. They, again, cannot help themselves.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot enter into a general discussion. He must keep himself to the Resolution.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was trying to explain, and I hope that the Minister of Health will realise it in future, if he does not realise it now, that it is possible for the cost of houses to be kept down to the price which prevails to-day. In order that the subsidy may go to the immediate relief of the tenant, and more particularly the poor tenant—that is desired by every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon—it may be necessary to go on the lines suggested by one hon. Member who referred to compulsion
in the production of building materials. Why not? If we do that, we shall be doing what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite boasted of doing in war time. I can guarantee that there is no more patriotic body of men in this country than the workers in the building trade, and they would be quite willing to be nationalised, or controlled, if you like. Have agreements, certainly, if you can, but if you cannot come to agreement, they will be quite willing to be compelled in some form or other, if only houses can be built for their poorer brethren and sisters.
They would be willing to be brought into one great organisation, on one condition, and that is that the profiteers who have so largely taken advantage of subsidies in the past shall not be allowed to pocket the profits in the future. I used to pay 1s. 6d. for a length of troughing, but when the rings and combines were formed they made me pay nearly 10s. for it. That is where the subsidy goes. I would like the Minister of Health to look to this aspect of the question. If it was necessary to nationalise or to control armaments works to produce guns with which to kill the Germans, because the profiteers were willing to agree to bleed this country when the country was bleeding from the attacks of foreign foes, why on earth cannot we if the necessity arises, bring in some system of compulsion in regard to the production of bricks and cement, the hewing of slates, and the getting of other materials for the housing of the people in my constituency and elsewhere? I thank the House for their courtesy in listening to me, and I hope that I shall have the pleasure of addressing the House on future occasions.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Every Member in the House will like me to congratulate the hon Member upon his maiden speech. Certainly, he comes very well equipped to discuss this subject, and I shall study the observations which he has offered. I have no doubt that, from time to time, he will be able to give us many explanations of the building trade and the work of building contractors, which has been a mystery to a good many of us. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the position
which he has attained. I do not think there is any Minister, if I may say so, who has more richly deserved and more thoroughly earned his position than the right hon. Gentleman. He worked very hard for the Labour party during the last four or five years, and he made more speeches enunciating Labour policy than any other ex-Minister on the Labour side of the House. I am glad to think that those speeches will be read and re-read in order that we may see how the right hon. Gentleman is progressing with the policy which he so vigorously enunciated. I should like to express also a few words of congratulation to the Parliamentary Secretary. She has fully earned her position. I suppose there was no Member of this House who understood more and was able to explain better the famous formula in the Local Government Act than the hon. Lady. It is some consolation to many of us to know that she will be engaged in putting that formula into operation.
In discussing the Government's proposal this afternoon, I think we may congratulate the Minister of Health upon the position in which he finds himself, generally, in relation to the housing problem, compared to the time when he was Parliamentary Secretary in 1924. There is a great deal of division in this House as to our housing policy, and the Financial Resolution which we are now discussing raises the issue in a very acute form. It is right, when we have to decide between one policy and another, to look at what has been done and consider whether by a reversal of that policy anything like the success that has been achieved in the past is likely to be attained in the future. I do not think that any hon. Member, wherever he may sit, will say that it is a small thing that during the last four and a-half years nearly 800,000 new houses have been built. If the Minister of Health is able to assist in the erection of houses at anything like that rate, everyone in the country will say that he has done very well. One of the best compliments that was ever paid to my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health was paid by the present Minister of Health to-day, when he said, reviewing the Act of 1923, that it had virtually done its work in providing houses for the lower middle classes. Un-
doubtedly, that particular Act of Parliament has benefited that particular class of the community.
7.0 p.m.
The problem which faces the House of Commons to-day is not the problem of houses to let, but the problem of building houses which can be let at such rents as the poorer-paid members of the community can afford to pay. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to reply, whether this step which has been taken to-day is designed to meet that problem. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Health, and he stated that his ambition was to have a steady, continuous, and expanding volume of house building. That is not sufficient. You might have a steady, continuous, and expanding volume of house building in this country at such a cost that no member of what we may call the poorer-paid classes of the country could afford to live in the houses built. Would anyone here desire to go back to the days of the Addison houses when you had the highest subsidy paid in the history of this country, when prices went sky high, and when you had the highest cost of houses at any time in our history?
There are two right hon. Gentlemen whom I would like to have heard in this Debate this afternoon. One is the right hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I would have liked to have heard him speak free and unfettered, because he could throw a great deal of light upon those days, and, when the history of that Parliament comes to be written it will not be the right hon. Gentleman who will alone have the blame for the high cost of houses then. I would very much like to hear also the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters). There is nobody in this House who can speak with more practical experience of the erection of houses than the right hon. Gentleman. I doubt whether he would be prepared to subscribe to the remarkable policy and doctrine which was enunciated this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman who has had a great deal of experience of municipal housing, and I doubt whether anyone, who has been associated with practical house building, would subscribe to that doctrine.
Is this proposal this afternoon really going to lead to houses being let at rents that the poorer-paid members of the community can afford to pay? That is the test of these housing proposals and I am sure Members of the Labour party would desire that that test should be applied to these proposals. I can understand there being two bodies of opinion in this country, one which says that the only way to get houses for the lower-paid members of the community is by an adequate subsidy, and the other which says—and I belong to the latter body—that the sooner you get rid of the subsidy the better and the cheaper will houses be built. Why is it that nobody this afternoon has spoken with approval of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion? The Labour party has said again and again, and the Prime Minister said only nine days ago, that the policy of the Labour party, so far as the housing subsidy was concerned, was to get back to the 1924 Act. This proposal certainly does not do that. If you really believed in subsidies and believed that they were going to provide for the lower-paid members of the community, then I could understand the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward that proposal this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman behind me has given case after case of people who are occupying this class of State-assisted houses to-day. Why is that class occupying those houses? Because other classes of the people cannot afford to pay the rents. This proposal will not bring a day nearer the occupancy of those houses by tie very people which they were designed to benefit. No one is going to tell me that the continuance of this subsidy is going to make that difference.
I do not want to say anything severe about the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in his absence. Can anyone who says "Back to the 1924 Act" say that the 1924 Act succeeded in its main object? Its main object was to provide houses to let at rents that the poorer-paid members of the community could pay. No one can say that the Act of 1924 did that. I have heard it said that it is the reduction in the 1924 subsidy which caused the 1924 Act to fail in its object. That is not correct. There was no reduction in the 1924 subsidy for two years; yet during the whole of those two years there was no difference. I appeal for confirmation to every Member
in this House when I say that there was no difference between the rents of the Wheatley houses and the rents of the Chamberlain houses. If anybody objects, let him put a question to the Minister of Health next week and see if what I say is not confirmed by the reply. I repeat, although there was this immense increase in the amount of subsidy to be paid and although I believe that the country is quite prepared to pay further sums of money in respect of housing subsidy if it will only do the work, that, notwithstanding that, in no part of the country during the first two years that the Wheatley Act was on the Statute Book and the housing subsidy had been very greatly increased, could you find any vital difference between the rents of the two classes of houses.

Mr. SIMMONS: On a point of Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman try and explain to the Committee—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that questions and explanations are not points of order.

Mr. SIMMONS: My point of Order is that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: I must ask the hon. Member to forgive me if I unintentionally misled him, but I will repeat the point which I was endeavouring to make. It is the vital point of this Debate. It is the point whether or not a subsidy does bring about houses at lower rents. That is the whole issue. If it does not, it is no use going on with these proposals this afternoon. Let hon. Members put a question to the Minister of Health and ask whether, notwithstanding the very large additional cost to the State of the Wheatley Act, it did in fact provide houses at lower rents. We know that it did not and that the rents of the Chamberlain houses and the Wheatley houses are to all intents and purposes the same.
What are we going to get from these proposals this afternoon? I can quite understand their being condemned, as they have been by people who believe in the subsidy, because those people say that, if we believe in a subsidy, we should go back, as the Prime Minister said nine days ago, to the 1924 Act. They have been condemned also in other parts of the House by people who say—and I
think there is overwhelming evidence for it—that the best means of getting back to a lower rent is to get a cheaper house. It certainly is a curious thing—and I do not see how it can be explained away, though perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is a building contractor can throw more light on it on the Second Reading of the Bill—that, when we have increased subsidies in this country so far as houses are concerned, the price has gone up. It has gone up not only when the subsidy has been increased, but I know case after case where the increase in the amount of the subsidy before the subsidy has actually come into operation has been added to the cost of the house. I have known equally well the reverse to take place. One may say that it is due to all sorts of costs, but there is overwhelming evidence that this question of the subsidy has a very direct bearing upon the cost of a working man's house in this country. On looking at the figures, any impartial person who can take a non-political view must be bound to come to the same conclusion.
I wish I could congratulate the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon upon the first effort which he has made. The first question for us this afternoon is whether we are going to go on with a policy of subsidy, and, secondly, whether we are going to go on with an increased subsidy or not. I can understand hon. Members saying on certain matters that one must give the Government time, but the right hon. Gentleman has had great experience in this matter, and no one on that side of the House has given more study to this great problem than the Minister of Health. He has been thinking it over for 4½ years and has made very definite pronouncements upon it. I hope this will not be regarded as a severe or an early criticism, but I say that we have had experience in the time the House has already been meeting that the Government are not fulfilling their pledges. Whatever difficulty there maybe about other pledges, there is no difficulty about fulfilling their pledges regarding the housing subsidy. They do not want a long time to think it over. This Motion, as the right hon. Member for Shettleston suggested, could easily have been drafted in the form of going back to the 1924 Act. There is no difficulty about it. The right hon. Gentleman
has, however, made a most curious decision. It is a sort of half-hearted measure, neither one thing nor the other, and like all half-hearted measures it will fail.
I can understand a vigorous housing programme, and the policy of an increased subsidy in the hope that you will help the building trade in order to induce contractors to do their work, but this is neither one thing nor the other. What do the Government expect to get by this proposal? Do they expect to get houses at lower rents; and that is the test. If that is the idea then many people like the Minister of Health will be very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman, with his ability and enthusiasm and his undoubted knowledge on this question, should consider the policy of doing away with subsidies as quickly as possible, reduce the cost of houses, as that is the only way to obtain houses at rents which the poorer classes can pay.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also include an extension of the De-rating Act to houses?

Sir K. WOOD: I should not like to get into trouble with the Chair by dealing with that matter. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to spend money on houses then no one on this side of the House or in any part of it will grudge the money if it is properly spent. Let us also have a continuous and comprehensive policy for the abolition of slums. If the money is wanted it will not be grudged.

Mr. MARKHAM: You did not find it.

Sir K. WOOD: There is no one who has any knowledge of the housing problem who would not say that it was the first duty and the only practical policy of the Government during the last 4½ years to concentrate on the building of new houses. No man who has given any consideration to these matters will say that it would have been right to invite local authorities to embark on big slum clearances. The first thing you have to do in clearing away slums is to have a place to put the unfortunate people.

Mr. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the Rural Housing Act?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the discussion is getting a little away from the Financial Resolution.

Sir K. WOOD: Let me go back to my original suggestion. If there is any money to be spent let us spend it more in this direction than in giving subsidies. It is a remarkable thing that nine days ago the Prime Minister announced that the Government were going back to the 1924 subsidy, but to-day they are only carrying out part of that policy. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has intervened in the interval. I can understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying: "What is the history of this matter. If I give you more money for a housing subsidy, we all know where it will go." What is the good of spending money in that way? If we have money to spend on housing let us spend it in a great scheme of development. Let no one think, however, that if you enter upon a big slum clearance scheme that you can have anything but very slow progress. Anyone who has had any practical experience of local authorities knows the delay that takes place, the most disappointing delays, in dealing with slum clearance schemes. Let the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to this problem and we will support him; but also to the reconditioning of houses. It is very easy on public platforms to say that the policy of reconditioning means keeping people in their present wretched hovels. What is the alternative? So far as slum clearances are concerned it is that you will be unable really to bring any practical assistance to a large number of the present generation at all. We have no desire to interfere with the right hon. Gentleman in getting this Resolution, but I hope that when we meet in the Autumn he will present a more worthy scheme than the proposal to-day. It has been condemned in all parts of the House. Let the Resolution go forward; but we invite the right hon. Gentleman in the Autumn to bring forward a much more practical and vigorous scheme which will prove more beneficial to the people of this country than this half-hearted and unsatisfactory proposal.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I must confess that there are some peculiar difficulties which attend me in replying to this Debate.
We have had a great many objections of a great many sorts, but I do not gather that any single Member proposes to support these objections by his vote, and that certainly throws a peculiar doubt on the Parliamentary proceedings. I will go through one or two of the minor points which have been raised during the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) at the end of his speech, in which he explained the housing question with a lucidity and force which everyone must admire, expressed some fear that the cost of the scheme, as set out in the Financial Memorandum, implied some limitation of the number of houses. I can assure him that he is wrong. The Financial Memorandum, in the most harmless platitude in the world, says that the cost will depend upon the number of houses put up, and it makes the equally platitudinous observation that if there are 100,000 houses the cost will be £150,000 a year for 40 years. I want to help the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) out of a little difficulty. He compared the amount spent on what are called the Chamberlain houses with the amount spent on the Wheatley houses, and he said that on the Chamberlain houses the subsidy was £75 and that in the case of the Wheatley houses it was £360. The hon. and gallant Member in the case of the Chamberlain houses capitalised the value of the annual allowance but in speaking of the Wheatley houses instead of giving the present capitalised value he had simply multiplied the annual amount of the subsidy, £9, by 40.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I did not multiply the subsidy. The subsidy was £9 for 40 years.

Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, exactly. The hon. Member multiplied the annual subsidy by 40. He gave the cost as £360. In dealing with the Chamberlain houses he gave the present value of the terminable annuity. The hon. and gallant Member can compare the total value of the two annuities or compare the capitalised value of both, but he must not have a capitalised value in the case of one and compare it with the annual subsidy multiplied by the number of years in the case of the other. Let me deal with the second class of objections. The late
Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to see a real comprehensive housing programme, and a fearless dealing with slum clearances. That is a delightful thing to see. But a repentance which is later than a death-bed repentance in the opinion of most theologians is unavailing. The hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) with his sincere and keen desire for housing reform made a very excellent speech. He dealt with the miseries of people who are living in overcrowded surroundings, and he asked for a quick remedy. Every word he said would have been appropriate to a consideration of the Bill which is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I must recall hon. Members' attention to this fact, that this is not that scheme. In the Gracious Speech a Bill was indicated dealing with housing and slum clearances. The proposal which we are putting forward this afternoon is not even half-way legislation. It is more modest even than that; it is standing still legislation. It is simply to prevent the situation becoming worse pending the introduction of the Bill in the autumn. The Prime Minister on the 3rd July explained the difference between these two Bills very clearly. He said:
There will he a short Bill dealing with a continuance of the subsidy.
It is merely legislation in order to prevent the situation becoming worse whilst we are preparing the legislation to be introduced in the autumn. This is simply to avoid the dislocation in the building of houses which will be caused if local authorities find the subsidy falling off in September.
I desire to address myself to the main argument of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). His theory is that if you put money for houses on the taxes you put up the price, but if you let the cost fall on the rates you do not. That is a very interesting theory and one which demands some elucidation. The right hon. Gentleman fell somewhat short in his explanation. He said that in June, 1921, the price of the Addison house was £695, that is before the subsidy was dropped, and when the subsidy was taken off the price dropped in June, 1922 to about £389. He paid himself the most magnificent compliment that any man ever did when he likened
himself to Einstein and said that like that great man he had provided a test by which his theory could be proved. There is a good deal more to be said about this question of the price of houses. We did not begin the tale early enough. In 1919 the price was £717. In June, 1920 it rose to £843, and in June, 1921, when the subsidy was still on and nobody was proposing to take it off, it dropped to £695, and in the following year to £389. It is very odd that no one looked for the cause for the running about of the prices of Addison houses during the years 1919 and 1922. The answer, of course, is simple and it is that in those years the price of everything went up. I have here the wholesale prices index figure, which is the best measure of the value of money I know.
In those disastrous years the wholesale index price ran up to 322 in 1920. It dropped in 1921 to 197.7 and dropped again later to 159.9. That was what money was doing in those disastrous years. The argument that the change in the Addison subsidy had anything to do with it is not an argument that would have deceived the silliest people that ever went shopping in those years. There are business men listening to me now who know how prices ran up and dropped, equally calamitously, within a few years. Of course the price of houses went up and down, too. Much paper was blackened with much ink by learned gentlemen financiers and bankers, telling us why the wholesale prices went up or down. But they never mentioned the Addison subsidy. They talked of inflation, credit, currency and gold but they never noticed the Addison subsidy. Really it is absurd to talk about the course of prices in the commodity in that frightful period as being due to the Addison subsidy. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1920 his Department published a solemn inquiry as to the reason why the burden of the rates generally had risen so suddenly and I would recall the concluding words of the statement of the Department. They said it was in the main due to the cost of wages and material, but added:
It seems, however, to be impracticable to isolate local authorities and local rates in such a way that they alone would cease to feel the effect of world wide forces which have diminished everywhere the purchasing power of money and have led everywhere to a greater nominal amount of expenditure.
That is exactly what we are now saying about the fluctuations in prices of the Addison houses.
The Ministry were kind enough to institute, in this matter of prices and subsidies, what in the language of science is called a controlled experiment. You take two sets of things as nearly as possible alike and place them in identical circumstances, and then expose one and not the other to the influence of a single factor. That happened in the case of the Scottish and the English houses. They cut the subsidy for English houses and left the Scottish houses alone. If their theory was true, then English prices should have gone down and the Scottish price stood still. But they both went down, not exactly together—but both went down. The truth is that this question is a great deal more complicated than to be met by the simple method of looking at the figures with regard to the price of houses and the subsidy. Supply and demand does play a part; and, as has been said, in a very peculiar way. Demand does not increase prices until you reach the limit of the capacity of the builders. If you go beyond that and have a scarcity value a house may cost anything. But that limit is in itself elastic. If proper warning is given, the trade adjusts itself to the new conditions—and a stronger demand under such circumstances need not mean a higher price. There is hardly any limit to the number of houses that you can erect in a given time under proper notice. That is what I believe to be the correct relation bteween subsidy and price. If you stimulate suddenly an altogether disproportionate demand, of course you put up prices. If you suddenly and violently lower demand—you certainly will lower prices. Every business man knows that in certain circumstances it is worth while to take a price which just covers labour and material, to dispense with profit, and even not cover overhead charges for the sake of keeping the business together. But a steady and foreseen increase in demand may have no effect on price at all.
I think I have disposed of the right hon. Gentleman's theory. It means, in effect, that taxpayers' money raises prices and ratepayers' money does not. That
is what the right hon. Gentleman has to prove if his theory is tenable. Then what are we to say of the demand that we should concentrate our building efforts with a view of getting rents down? What did the last Government do? They cut down the subsidy and they in consequence made the economic rent higher. If the subsidy had been left on, every penny of it could have been used by the local authorities so that the reduced price due to general economic reasons could have been used for the reduction of rents. But the Government took off the subsidy when prices were coming down from natural causes and they left the local authority in exactly the same position with regard to the extorting of economic rents. I ask hon. Members who are naturally impatient with regard to housing to remember that this small Bill is merely to clear the way for the future housing and slum clearance scheme.
I must conclude with a few words with regard to the language used by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I can always make allowances for a man who has a great rhetoric gift and is carried away by the flood of his eloquence. It is a fault that we should all like to share. But it was an almost overwhelming exaggeration when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of our perpetuating the present system and of keeping it in force for ever. Really when it is a question of, it may be only three months, the word "perpetuity" is much too strong and a misuse of terms. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman sees his statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will feel that his undoubted rhetorical gifts have led him into some pardonable exaggeration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Perhaps it is not necessary again to point out that this Bill is solely an interim
Measure; that it is not intended to provide any permanent solution of financial difficulties, but is merely to tide us over an interim period. Clause 1 was very fully explained during the discussion of the Money Resolution, and Clause 2, Subsection (3) is the only part of the Bill which requires any further explanation. This Sub-section repeals the existing provisions as to Exchequer contributions which are inconsistent with the proposals of the Bill. The first of the provisions in question (part of Section 4 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925) provides for the Exchequer Contribution after the deficiency period. The remaining provisions mentioned in the Sub-Section (viz. Section 8 and corresponding Schedule of the Economy [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1926, and Section 2 (i, 6) and corresponding Schedule of the Act of 1927) provide for the present Exchequer Contributions. This is another illustration of that rather horrible method of legislation by reference, which is unavoidable in the circumstances, but which none of us likes.
The criticism in the Debate on the Financial Resolution rather suggested that this Bill would be the Government's first, last and only word on Unemployment Insurance, that I had done nothing and proposed to do nothing; in short that I was content to allow things to go on as before. I do not think it even necessary to deny such charges as that. I followed the constitutional practice which requires that a Money Resolution should be presented to the House, and I intended, and do intend, to make a wider statement upon the Bill to-night. It is perhaps appropriate and for the convenience of the House, and particularly of those Members who are not quite as familiar as some of us with Unemployment Insurance administration, that I should refer to some points in the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts which will continue to be in operation after this Bill is passed. On this Bill we are, of course, precluded entirely from discussing those questions which might involve legislation affecting other matters, and we are also precluded from discussing any question of a permanent solution of the financial difficulties, but I think I am in order in dealing with some purely administrative points in relation to the problems which confront us.
On the second day that I was in office I began my review of the existing situation. I have covered a considerable amount of ground and I shall continue, during the Recess, to follow up personally the work of the Department in every one of its branches. I propose to visit the various divisions and to discuss on the spot the difficulties which are undoubtedly there to be solved. But there are certain administrative steps which I have taken and which I propose to take and about which the House may be interested to hear something. The criticism that has been made seems to suggest that a little more clear thinking is required about the nature of the problem. There must be in any State unemployment scheme some kind of test of genuineness. This is proved if you state the obverse side of the case. My experience of working-class organisation and the general attitude of the insured contributors leads me to be quite certain, as the present Secretary of State for War was certain in 1924, that in the administration of a scheme of this kind, those administering the scheme must be satisfied as to the genuineness of the applicants.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady is now going beyond her own Bill on which it would not be in order to deal with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Miss BONDFIELD: I accept your Ruling, Sir. I was merely going to take that as an illustration of the difference between what might be regarded as the principles of the Bill and the procedure adopted in carrying out those principles. It seemed to me that many of the criticisms directed against the proposal in the Money Resolution were due in large part, to mixing up procedure with the principles which have to underlie any legislation. The question of the degree of administrative responsibility resting on the Exchange official is one on which I should like to say something, and I hope in doing so I am not out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to say the right hon. Lady would be quite out of order in doing so. She must realise that this would lead us into a general discussion on Insurance administration, because, if I allowed her to proceed with
that matter, I could not possibly prevent other hon. Members from taking the same course.

Mr. TOM SMITH: May I suggest, Sir, that it would be helpful, particularly to new Members, if we had some indication of the limitations to be placed upon the Debate.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: I was about to ask the same question. Might we have some Ruling, Sir, as to the scope of the Debate and the extent to which we may go in discussing these matters. For instance, will it be in order to discuss the whole question of transfer, which is a matter upon which I should like to say something?

Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion must be limited to a rather narrow field. The discussion upon this Bill cannot go beyond the Money Resolution upon which it is founded. After all, that is what governs the Second Reading of the Bill. The only point that would be in order would be the point that the amount by which the Government propose to increase the contribution is inadequate, or some point of that kind, but we certainly cannot go into the administration of the general Insurance scheme or into any other parts of it.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I respectfully submit that the question of transfer would be in order because part of the cost of transfer—the advances to the men transferred—is a charge on the Fund or may be paid for out of the Fund. It follows that the amount of the provision now to be made would be very material in this connection and that the question would arise as to whether it is sufficient for the purposes for which it is being asked.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Bill allows of a certain increase in the amount of the State contribution. I submit that it would be in order to argue that that sum should he used for a definite and specific purpose. Would it not be in order to argue that the increased contribution by the State should be used for a particular purpose within the meaning of the Act—that is to say that this extra sum should be applied to particular purposes and not for the Fund in general. I would ask your ruling, Sir, on the point as to whether it would not be in order
to discuss whether the £3,500,000 which the Money Resolution has already voted, should be spent in abolishing or minimising a particular administrative hardship arising under the Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that this would be the time for earmarking the contribution of the State towards the Fund. As I understand it, the Money Resolution has been introduced because the Fund was more or less bankrupt, if I may use that term. The proposal in the Money Resolution is that the State instead of contributing two-fifths, should contribute one-half of the contribution of the employer and employed, and the only thing which would be in order in a discussion of this kind would be an argument on the necessity for the increased grant, or, otherwise, that the amount was inadequate to put the Fund into a solvent condition.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The Financial Memorandum which has been issued on this matter states:
The present proposal in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, will be sufficient to enable the Fund to discharge its liabilities until the early part of next year.
I suggest that the administrative changes, which were mentioned last week and of which the Minister wishes to tell us today, are "unforeseen circumstances" which of themselves may mean that the Fund will not have sufficient money with which to carry on until we meet again after the Recess. I suggest that that vitiates the whole of the premises that have been put forward and that we should be in order in discussing it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The necessity for the increased grant would undoubtedly be in order, but I do not know what the hon. Member would regard as coming within that definition, and I should have to know what he proposed to say on that point before deciding whether he was in order or not.

Mr. WALLHEAD: As this sum of £3,500,000 is for the general purposes of unemployment insurance I suggest that the Debate might be allowed to cover all those administrative points to which the money should be applied.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not agree. The Debate must be confined to the necessity of the increased grant.

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall obey your Killing, Sir, and shall merely direct attention to the need for this proposal. The borrowing powers obtained by the last Ministry have been practically exhausted and the present borrowing powers would be insufficient. We consider it would be a vicious thing to increase the borrowing powers, anyhow for this Fund, thus placing an added burden of interest upon it, and therefore the Government propose this increase of the Exchequer contribution as an interim measure to meet the present emergency and give us some margin of security to the end of the year. In view of your Ruling, Sir, I leave it at that and move the Second Reading of the Bill, explaining, as I did at the beginning, that its sole object is to prevent the whole system of unemployment insurance from coming to and end for want of money.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Lady tell us how long will this extra sum enable the Fund to carry on without further borrowing?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is anticipated that this sum will make the Fund secure from bankruptcy until the end of the year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not mean secure from bankruptcy. There is, roughly, a sum of £3,500,000 still to borrow. Is this sum to carry on with, plus the £3,500,000?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, we may exhaust the borrowing powers. I think we may probably use the greater part of the £3,500,000.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask if, at the end of this year, it may be necessary to come to the House again for a further grant?

Miss BONDFIELD: That, of course, depends on the curve of employment and the degree to which the number of unemployed persons can be reduced by their absorption into employment. I have to go on the assumption that we cannot count upon that. I hope we shall be able to show at the end of the year that my fears are unnecessary, but I have stated the position frankly to the House.

Sir A. POWNALL: I have been very closely into the finances of this Measure, and I have been at some pains to compare the present unemployment figure
with what may reasonably be expected to be the average in the course of the next few months. There has been an increase in round figures of 200,000 between June and October in previous years, and that increase also took place in 1924 when there was a Socialist Government. I sincerely hope we shall not have that big increase, but, even assuming that there is an increase of 200,000, I agree with the right hon. Lady that there should be enough—anyhow on my calculations—to see us through until the House meets again, probably in the latter part of October. What seems to me may arise, however, are the "unforeseen circumstances" suggested in the Memorandum. When the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the question of the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act he asked whether on this side of the Recess there would be any alteration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Prime Minister said:
An alteration so far as I have indicated, but no more.
Then the hon. Member asked:
Am I to take it that all the iniquities of not genuinely seeking work will continue it to afflict the unemployed? 
and the Prime Minister said:
So far as these are administrative, no; so far as they were legislative, that is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1929; col. 874, Vol. 229.]
8.0 p.m.
In other words, administrative changes were contemplated, or are contemplated, by the Ministry of Labour, and my contention is that those changes, about which the right hon. Lady wished to tell us, are such as may well throw the finances of the Fund out of gear. We have a right to know before we separate for the Recess what changes are contemplated. We must remember that the present Bill, founded on the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, of which the right hon. Lady was a co-signatory, has made this question of a statutory nature. We have set up a body of 'a legal kind, with an appeal to the Court of Referees and to the Umpire, and, as I understand the Act of 1927, the right hon. Lady has no power of herself whatever—the Prime Minister says without further legislation—to alter the Measure which we passed in 1927, unless she is going to do something in the nature of again setting up Ministerial discretion. That has been demolished. I am trying
to keep within the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult to do it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is suggesting that we should treat this Money Resolution as if it was introduced to deal with some circumstances that may possibly arise, but, so far as I understand this Money Resolution, it is to deal with circumstances which have already arisen.

Sir A. POWNALL: Surely, Sir, if the administration is to be altered, as the Prime Minister definitely stated last week, that will of itself throw out the finances of the Measure to such an extent that the House is entitled to an explanation as to how the matter stands.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so, but another opportunity for that must be taken.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: I wish to congratulate the right bon. Lady the Minister of Labour on the way in which she is tackling her job. We on this side have never been satisfied with the finances of this Fund. When I was making speeches in 1927 and showing the anxiety expressed to-night by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), those speeches were met with a stony silence. It has been pointed out repeatedly that the Government of that day were paying no regard whatever either to the Blanesburgh Report or to the Actuaries' Report, and it has been pointed out that the actuaries based contributions upon the assumption of a normal unemployment amounting to 600,000 workpeople. It was well known to every hon. Member interested in the subject that the contribution made by the Government was totally inadequate to meet the benefits that were laid down in the Act. The Government of that day had to admit that inadequacy, but preferred to accept the stigma of incapacity rather than to admit an error of judgment, and within a year of the passing of the Act they had to come to this House for increased borrowing powers and to raise the amount that they might borrow for the purpose of lending to the Unemployment Insurance Fund from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000. At the same time they took power to borrow £5,000,000 to keep the Fund running on. That, to say the least of it, was not a businesslike proceeding. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are busi-
ness men. Well might the country be in the rotten position in which it finds itself if they conduct business on the same lines as they conducted the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Therefore, I have to congratulate the right hon. Lady in coming here with a business proposition to put the finances of this Act in order. I believe that the amount asked for will turn out to be inadequate, but I believe that the principle adopted is a sound and right principle. We have more unemployed now than we had in 1927. In that year the average unemployment was less than 10 per cent., but in 1928 the average was greater than 10 per cent.; in other words, that took place which the men in this House with experience of this matter anticipated would take place, but the business men in the House said that unemployment was going to decrease and that we should not need the funds to pay out benefits, because the people would be at work. We complained of another point. We had a tripartite agreement, one of the parties refusing to pay anything like an adequate share. The employer paid so much, and the workmen slightly less, but the Government claimed to get off with less still. We objected to that principle then, and I am glad that that principle is going to be rectified by the Government paying a sum of money amounting, roughly, to one-third of the contributions payable under the Act. That seems to me to be fairer, for many reasons.
Owing to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am doubtful whether I am at liberty to draw attention to what we pointed out at that time, namely, that the action of the Government was going to place such a burden on local authorities that they were not going to help the trade and industry of the country, but were actually going to hinder its restoration. It may be that there are many contributory causes, but trade has not improved at the rate we were assured it would improve, and the unemployed have not been absorbed at the rate we were assured would be the case. Consequently, the present Government, at the earliest opportunity, have had to turn their attention to finding money to make this scheme financially sound, and I think they are wise in doing that as a first step. I do not intend to go into details about the hardships of administration, but I believe that many
of those hardships have been caused, first of all, by the late Government cramping the amount of money that could possibly be expended. That required the strictest economy in administration and compelled men to do things in administration which, as ordinary citizens, they would not have done, because they felt that if they did give anybody the benefit of the doubt in a particular case—and there are many cases of hardship—they would be imperilling the solvency of the Fund and probably preventing some other and, as they thought more worthy, objects getting benefit should they fall on the Fund. Therefore, I have to congratulate the Government for bringing in this Bill as a first step and to thank them for their promise that we are going to get a Bill later on to review the whole situation and try to correct some of the hardships about which we have complained hitherto.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I shall not speak at any length, because I recognise that the Financial Resolution went through this House and that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was inevitable when this Bill came up, and that no other ruling, once that Money Resolution was disposed of, was possible. Let me, at the same time, raise one or two points which might be in order now. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker), who has just spoken, but let me say, first, that if what he says be correct, it possibly backs up my indictment of the officials the other day more strongly than I was capable of doing myself. He stated that the Minister of Labour intends to increase the sum by £3,600,000, thus making more money available and giving the officials the financial power to be more liberal than they formerly were; in other words, that the officials were not guided by the Act, and did not watch the Act, but only took cognisance, or part cognisance, of the amount of money available. If that be the case, if any official took cognisance, not of the Act as it was, but of the amount of money available, it makes my charge against the officials much graver and stronger than I thought, namely, that an official, in the discharge of his duties laid down by Act of Parliament, did not consider the Act, or at least only partly considered the Act, but partly considered things that were outside his purview and control.
That is a tremendously strong charge to make against the officials, that they did not entirely carry out the Act, but preferred to carry out a Government (economy in its place. If that be the charge, they should be dismissed, and dismissed early, if the hon. Gentleman's speech be correct, because, be an official good or bad, the theory of past Governments has been that it was his duty to carry out the Act. The question of raising the money for it was the Government's business, and any person going beyond that, if the hon. Gentleman's statement be correct, should be dismissed at the earliest possible moment.
We are constantly told that this is an attempt to put the Act on a proper basis. The hon. Member for Bilston said that this was based on the Blanesburgh Report, but may I be excused if I reiterate that the last Act passed by the Conservative Government was not based on the Blanesburgh Report? That is perfectly true, and it is a good job for the unemployed that it was not based on that Report. Let the House remember that while the theory of the Blanesburgh Committee was a contribution of one-third from the employer, one-third from the workman, and one-third from the State, it was also their theory that the contribution of the employers would be £9,500,000, the contribution of the workmen the same, and the contribution of the State the same, but even under the system of the last Government the State contributed £12,500,000, or £3,000,000 more than the Blanesburgh Committee asked them to contribute; and while it might be a less proportion, it was a less proportion of a much larger sum than the Blanesburgh Committee ever asked them to raise.
I believe that the financial requirements are, as stated by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), the keynote of every possible Measure. I have come to the conclusion in this House that whether you discuss housing, unemployment in relation to exchange matters, or unemployment in relation to getting work, you are always dominated by one consideration, and one consideration only, namely, Where can you get the money? We talk about the raising of the school age, and the only thing that has to be considered in that question is the money with which to do it. All these problems are constantly dominated by the financial consideration. The
present proposal is designed to make the Government contribution £3,600,000 more, and to that extent it will better the Government relationship to the other contributors.
My case, however, is that this Measure ought not to have been introduced just now, but ought to have been substituted by a Measure which took a much fuller, broader, and bigger outlook of the financial provisions of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The right hon. Lady told us that this amount, plus the power to borrow extra a similar amount, would possibly last us until the end of this year. That, however, is very problematical, because to-day there is being discussed in the Press a state of affairs that is tremendously grave. Anyone who looks at the Lancashire cotton trade cannot escape the significant fact that any day might see that big industry flung into a big trade dispute. It will occur when the House of Commons is not meeting, and any person, who has had experience of trade union affairs, as the right hon. Lady must have had, knows that if the million workers in the cotton trade are thrown out by a lock-out—it will not be a strike—the administration costs of unemployment insurance will rapidly mount up. We have had to borrow £7,000,000 during the last seven months when there was no dispute worth talking about; and we are now faced with the possibility of one of the greatest trade disputes, and only a similar amount is being provided.
That is why I say that wise, prudent, and capable finance would not have introduced this Measure, but would have recast the whole financial basis of unemployment insurance. We are not facing up to the financial position. I differed—although I must say that they had a case—from my colleagues in the Trade Union Congress, who, at the time of the Blanesburgh Committee, advocated a reduction in the contribution of employers and employed. I wish this Fund were not remaining contributory—I would make it the Labour party's idea to have a non-contributory Fund—but as long as it remains contributory, I would keep the contribution of the employers and employed as they are now. I have been in this House seven years and I think that even my keenest critic—and I often think my enemies sometimes number more than my friends—
would admit that I take an interest in this question. I think that I do know something about it. So long as I have been in the House, I have never yet had from a single constituent—and this is to the credit of the working people—a request for a reduction in the contribution from the working people. Therefore, I would keep the contributions of the workpeople and employers as they are. I charge the Government with insufficiency in relation to this Fund, for there is an absolutely unanswerable case for the Government at this stage contributing not, 50 per cent. of what the employers and employed contribute, but an amount equal to that which they contribute.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston says that the officials were limited by the amount of money at their disposal. Does he think that raising £13,500,000, when you have already borrowed £7,000,000 in the last seven months, is raising it anything like adequate enough even to allow the officials that leniency which they want? The workmen and the employers contribute between them about £32,000,000 or £33,000,000. We now ask that the State should contribute about £16,000,000. If the Labour party's theory of a non-contributory system be sound—and I think their case is unanswerable, it is the soundest case I know—and if we are sincere, if we want the officials to have the power that we desire them to have, if we wish to see more human administration, if we wish to see the Act extended so that hardship would be almost if not entirely eliminated, why do we not raise the State's contribution from the figure which is now proposed, which is half the combined contributions of the employers and the employed, to a sum equal to the joint contributions of the employers and the employed?
I think something like 11,000,000 people are covered by the Insurance Fund, but it does not cover anything like the whole of the population. There are outside this insurance scheme large masses of the population Who only contribute to it as members of the State, but there are also large masses of workmen who contribute not only as citizens of the State but as workmen towards what, in my view, ought to be solely a State charge. If there be a case for relieving necessitous areas of the rating burdens upon them, there is an equally strong case against asking the necessitous trades
We are asking the steel smelters, the engineers, the men in the building to carry the burden of this insurance, trades, the miners, and those in the cotton trade, every one of them necessitous trades, trades living on the verge of starvation, to carry the financial burden of this Fund, with the State contributing only half the combined contributions of the other two parties to the Fund. Is there a single hon. Member, be he Tory, Liberal or Labour, who thinks that a fair division—that the powerful State, which includes the Rothschilds, which includes millionaires, should contribute no more than that? I contend that we are not making anything like decent financial arrangements under the insurance scheme.
I do not want to go beyond the ruling of the Chair, and I cannot raise what I would have liked to bring forward tonight, and that is to suggest what administrative changes could be made in order to abolish hardships. Perhaps I may be permitted to digress for only a sentence or two—well, I will not do even that, but I will use an illustration to make my point. I did not come here to-night to bring forward criticisms in a cantankerous spirit, but I thought I could have made a constructive speech telling my colleagues how the Act could be improved administratively, and I am sorry that I cannot make that speech. But inside the terms of Mr. Speaker's ruling, I want to remind the House that we have been promised administrative changes within the next few months, and every one on this side of the House hopes those changes will be big and sweeping. What I wish to ask is how the Government can make big and sweeping administrative changes when the money derived from this addition and the sum they are to be allowed to borrow, about £7,000,000, will be almost all eaten up at the end of the year under the present administrative system, apart altogether from what may happen following the changes which they may introduce? I want someone from the Treasury bench to tell me to-night if the Government intend to improve the administration of the Act in a big, bold, and generous fashion in order to deal with the misfortunes of our unfortunate people under the capitalist system? If
they intend to do that, and to bring into benefit numbers of people who are at present outside, how can they say that £7,000,000 will suffice, when under the administrative persecutions of the last Government £7,000,000 covered only seven months?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): On a point of Order. The Minister tried very hard to make a statement on this specific subject, and the Speaker ruled it out, and said that it could not be discussed. I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether my hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will be allowed to make that statement.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to submit that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is quite entitled, within the ruling, to point to the inadequacy of this sum as a means of giving expression to the well-known policy and pledges of the Front Bench.

Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Speaker ruled that the Minister could not make a statement as to what her policy would be in alleviating or altering administration, and, if she is not to be allowed to do that, or if her colleagues are not to be allowed to do that, how can we answer the questions which are being put by my hon. Friend?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Further to that point of Order, I submit that the hon. Member for Gorbals is merely arguing that the inadequacy of the sum demonstrates quite cearly that there is no intention of improving the administration of the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I heard Mr. Speaker give his Ruling that administration could not be discussed. So far as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is concerned), I take it that he is not going into the administration, but pointing out that he thinks the amount now proposed is insufficient to enable them to do anything.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, that is my point; and I want to say further that I think the White Paper does not meet the situation at all. I think the advisers who drafted the Financial Resolution have not faced up to the financial requirements.
I have somewhat lost the thread of my argument by the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, but this is a point which I wish to emphasise. In my view this sum is hardly calculated to enable us to carry on with the present administration; without changing the administration, without taking into consideration the possibility of the Lancashire lock-out, the sum we are asked to vote is barely adequate, and I wish to ask the Minister seriously to reconsider her position. In her answer to me, delivered fairly and courteously, she said that she intended to use not only the £3,500,000 being granted, but the other £3,500,000 which is to be borrowed. In other words, she is going to put up the borrowed money to £40,000,000 as well as increase the grant. We are told that this is putting things on a financial basis, but how can that claim be made when things are put into a worse position? The only difference is this, that instead of raising the borrowed capital from £36,500,000 to £45,000,000 we stop it at £40,000,000.
All the workmen engaged in the steel trade, all the miners digging coal, will have to pay more in interest because we are not increasing this sum of £3,500,000 to at least the £16,000,000 which I have suggested; in fact, we ought to be increasing it to £19,500,000. If the Government had done that, they could have made their administrative changes, but they prefer to allow this debt to accumulate, allow it to come on to the backs of industries and of the toiling masses, while taking good care to provide for the financiers, who are going to get their interest. My charge against the Government is that the sum proposed is fundamentally too small. By no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that it is large enough. I plead earnestly and anxiously with the Minister to reconsider her decision. She is taking to-night a big step, a step which will fetter her action for months to come. Decent men and decent women, just as good as any in the land, are calling on us to-night to alter the present system, and I ask the Minister in charge whether it is yet too late for her to respond to that appeal. If I cared I think I could be—though I do not want to be—the slightest bit offensive to-night, but I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I were to allow this pro-
posal to go through unopposed, because I think it is a shockingly inadequate grant, it is mean, it is not worthy of its proposers and it ought to be treated with the utmost contempt by a party which professes to hold the great ideals we hold.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I wish, first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Labour upon being the first woman to become a member of a British Cabinet. I am sure that the Government will be materially strengthened by the accession of a woman to the councils of our Cabinet. The various Departments of the Government under the direction of the Lord Privy Seal are concerned with attacking the fundamental causes of unemployment. The business of the Minister of Labour is to deal with the causes of unemployment so long as they exist, and it is her duty to concentrate her efforts on humanising the Act so that the victims of unemployment will suffer as little as possible so long as the scourge of unemployment prevails in the land. I should be out of order if I discussed the question as to whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to raise the benefits, because we all know that a raised scale of benefits was approved by the joint conference of the Labour party and the trade unionists and that-appeared in our election manifesto last month. The unemployed are entitled to know when it is the intention of the Government to raise the benefits to the scale approved by all sections of the Labour movement. I think I shall be in order in discussing whether the £3,600,000 provided in this Bill is adequate or not to deal with the various anomalies still existing in the administration of our unemployment system. The removal of those anomalies was dealt with in our election manifesto, in which it was stated that it was the intention of the Government at the earliest possible date to remove the disqualification which deprived unemployed men of the payments to which they were entitled. I hope the Minister of Labour will consider the advisability of including in this proposal, or in a later Bill, a very short Amendment leaving out the word "genuinely"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in dealing with that Amendment at this stage.

Mr. MALONE: I was going to argue that the sum we are dealing with ought to be larger if it is intended to carry out all the improvements which we would like to see carried out.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker informed the House that that was the very thing hon. Members could not discuss on this Measure.

Mr. MALONE: Of course, I how to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would like to make this general remark. There has been some hesitation in introducing Amendments to the Act that we would like to have seen included in this short Bill. I would rather see the benefits given to a few people who are not entitled to them than see, as we see at the present moment, benefits not being given to some people who ought to have them. I should like to see an alteration in the time occupied between the carrying out of the appeal and the unemployed man or woman appearing at the Employment Exchange—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the points which he is raising are not in order.

Mr. MALONE: Should I be in order in stating that in my opinion this sum of money is quite inadequate to cover the administrative improvements which are necessary in Courts of Referees?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The sum of money now being asked for is intended to enable the Government to carry out the Act as it is now in force.

Mr. MALONE: I will leave those points and raise them at the earliest opportunity. The speeches which hon. Members have made or have tried to make on this side have shown that there is a strong feeling on this point, and I hope an opportunity will be given before the Autumn Recess to bring out these important administrative details, and for the Minister of Labour to explain what she is doing. I am inclined to believe that every effort is being made to meet these disabilities and all these questions ought to be discussed. The Minister of Labour has the distinction of being the first woman to sit as a Member of the British Cabinet, and it is a distinction which has been earned by her by years
of service given to the cause of men and women in this country. I am sure it is a distinction which has been appreciated by Members of every party in this House. I should like to see that distinction crowned by the achievement of having brought humanity and justice into the administration of the laws dealing with unemployed men and women in this country.

Sir H. BETTERTON: In view of the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to say anything about the Bill, nor do I desire to delay its passage for one moment. I only rise for the purpose of saying one word about the remarks of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker). As I was one of the two Ministers to whom the officials referred to by the hon. Member were responsible, I want to say that, if he thinks that the officials to whom he refers take cognisance, in their administration of the Act, of the amount of money available, he is totally mistaken.

Mr. MALONE: On a point of Order. You have just ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the question of administration by officials cannot now be discussed, and I would ask whether the hon. Baronet is in order in pursuing that point? If he is, other hon. Members would be very glad to follow up that question.

Sir H. BETTERTON: A specific charge, and a very serious one—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Baronet was going to discuss the administration of officials. He was only going to say, as I understood, that a charge which had been made against officials was not correct.

Mr. J. BAKER: May I ask the hon. Baronet not to ask me any questions, because I shall not be able to reply to them?

Mr. MALONE: On that point of Order. I asked your Ruling just now on the question of discussing, not charges, but the Courts of Referees, which affect the work of the officials, and you ruled that out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am, not aware that the hon. Baronet is discussing anything of that kind.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am replying to the statement, which I cook down, made
by the hon. Member for Bilston, that officials took cognisance of the amount of money available, his inference being that their administration was influenced by that fact.

Mr. BAKER: May I ask the hon. Baronet if that was not the interpretation of the hon. Member of Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and not any statement that I made? I made no such statement.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Whatever be the interpretation put upon it, what I desire to say is that the officials responsible to myself and to Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland carried out with complete fidelity the obligations put upon them by Acts of this House, and anyone who knows the British Civil Service will know that they will carry out with equal faithfulness their duties to the present Government.

Mr. MANSFIELD: As a new Member of this House, and one who has come direct from administration connected with the practical life of our people, I want to say that it is a tragedy to me that the late Government left this fund in its present position. I support the principle contained in the Money Resolution, because we have all to realise that we are living in a scientific world. Everywhere we find machinery displacing labour power, with the result that we have now, as a nation, to try to find some ways and means of maintaining our unemployed during this period of transition. At one quarry where I have had to deal with various questions affecting the men, there were, less than two years ago, over 80 men employed in the production of limestone, but, because of the introduction of machinery, only 30 men are employed there to-day. That means—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not want to rule too strictly during a maiden speech, but the real purpose of this Bill is to increase an Exchequer grant, and the discussion must be confined to the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount, or the reasons for its being granted.

Mr. MANSFIELD: That was my point, namely, that, unless the Government transfer more money for the maintenance of our unemployed, where they are being displaced by machinery, our local ratepayers will have to maintain them, and, if I understand aright the movement with
which I am connected, the policy of that movement is, and I hope it will be the policy of every Government, to do what they can to transfer the maintenance of our unemployed from a local to a national burden. Further, there has been a great deal of economy on this question of unemployment insurance. Because of this economy, because we have been told that there was not the money, men whom I have had to represent have had to travel 25 miles each way to have their cases heard before the Court of Referees. I have had notice of a similar case to-day. Therefore, I hope that more money will be made available. I am strongly in favour of the present proposal, although I realise that it is only a stop-gap, and I hope that, whatever Government may be in power, they will in future concentrate their attention on getting more money into a national fund so that our unemployed may be maintained from that source and not be forced on to the local authorities. We have as a nation been able to provide the money to pay interest on War Debt, but we have many men to-day—miners, blastfurnacemen, iron and steel workers, and so on—who, because of their War service, are not able to follow their arduous occupations, and who are left to be maintained by boards of guardians because they cannot get maintenance from some national fund. I say that it is a tragedy that things have been allowed to get into this position, and I hope and trust that our Government will have a chance, after the first Recess is over, to do something to improve the position of the unemployed.

Mr. REMER: I am sure the whole House will desire to congratulate the hon. Member on his maiden speech, and to welcome him as a contributor to our Debates. My object in intervening is to refer to a subject which I am afraid will weary the right hon. Lady, though I have no intention of doing so, namely, that of the finances of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Last week she was courteous enough to refer me to a book of which I was already in possession, and which I had spent some time in studying, namely, the Report of the Ministry of Labour. I know that the right hon. Lady is not responsible for that particular Report, but I think that Members of Parliament are entitled to
see some form of balance-sheet showing how the deficit is reached which this Bill discloses. We see a table on page 27 dealing with contributions, and we see on other pages particulars as to the outgoings, if I may use that term. I would suggest to the right hon. Lady that, if these figures could be all put together, so that in each financial year we could see a definite balance-sheet showing the debit and credit sides of the Fund, it would be of considerable assistance to the House.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether in your opinion this is a Supply day or otherwise?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is in order in dealing with the finance of the Fund, because that is what is under discussion.

Mr. REMER: That is all I have to say on the Second Reading of the Bill. My suggestion is entirely for the convenience of Members and is of a constructive nature, and I think that, if it were adopted, it would be of value to the whole House in enabling them to ascertain the exact condition of the finances of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. WALLHEAD: In my view we might have had, during the two or three weeks that remain of the present part of the Session, a Measure introduced that would have done something to alleviate the injustices of which so many of us have complained in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope, although I am doubtful about it, that the money now asked for will be adequate for the task to which it is to be devoted, but I think it would have been better if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) suggested, the Government had come boldly forward and asked for a really adequate grant to put the Fund on a sound financial basis. I do not see much real hope of any great modification in the vast number of unemployed. Even when the schemes proposed are put into operation, it will be some time before the Unemployed Insurance Fund begins to feel the benefit. It appears to me that the sum asked for is not adequate to the task to be accomplished. We should not dispose of the matter before we have
had at least laid at the door of the Conservative party some of the blame for the position in which the Fund finds itself. I remember, when the late Government's Bills were going through, we discussed the assumptions upon which their finances were based. I remember taking the point of view that the Government were altogether too optimistic and that, instead of the numbers decreasing, they might increase. Their assumption was that 600,000 was about the normal figure to which they expected unemployment to be reduced. The fact is that the Conservative party never have understood and do not yet understand this problem of unemployment. They do not understand the working of their own system, they do not understand its implications, and they did not understand them in the Bill, and the consequence was that their finance was totally inadequate. The result is that debt has mounted up.
9.0 p.m.
I had hoped that the Labour party would find means to put the Fund on a sound foundation and stop the necessity for the continual borrowing of money. I do not think this £3,500,000 will do away with the necessity for borrowing. Further borrowing powers will have to be sought, and, instead of the indebtedness of the Fund being £40,000,000, it may go to £45,000,000, or even £50,000,000. The piling up of debt to that extent actually takes £2,000,000 a year from the contributions of the men for the purpose of paying interest which might otherwise be used in the payment of benefits. That is the evil of this continual borrowing, and that is why I think that even at this point the Government might accept an Amendment to increase the amount and place the Insurance Act upon a financially sound basis. Then, when they come forward with their Bill to amend the administration of the Act, the finances will be in such a position as to enable them to carry out the new proposals with justice to all concerned. I regret the line that has been taken, because of the conditions that obtain among the poor people whom I represent. The instances of injustice are incalculable. It is appalling when one thinks of the conditions that exist and the necessity for money to administer this terrible machine which is grinding men to powder. It is time it ceased. I hope
even yet, before the House disperses for the vacation, some measure will be taken to avert the terrible consequences of the Act of 1927—go further back if you like to the Act of 1921 with its Clause about genuinely seeking work—and will take away the necessity for the court of referees acting in the way that they do and bring the unemployed Acts into line with the common decency that ought to characterise the Government of the country.

Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member says attention ought to be called to the fact that indebtedness of the Fund is largely due to the Conservative Government. I think it is only fair to say that at least £15,000,000 of that indebtedness is due to the events of 1926, and those events were largely due to the action of members of the present Government.

Mr. TINKER: May I point out what happened last year. We had borrowing powers of £30,000,000. The Government of the day came forward and obtained power to increase them to £40,000,000. I remember on that occasion we pressed that they would require £100,000,000. What does this Bill mean? The Minister of Labour has made it clear that she is not going to use any more borrowing powers and that extra grants will be made by the Government. If that be the case, no one can object to it. We are paying £2,000,000 per annum by way of interest. This Bill is for the purpose of checking that. It is to put a stop to any more borrowing powers. If the Minister is not in a position to explain fully what she would like to do, it is not her fault. She made an attempt to meet the attacks that have been made upon her, but the Speaker ruled it out of order. I take it she wanted to tell us that the accompanying Bill would meet all requirements. It is hardly fair, therefore, at this juncture to hurl attacks upon her when she is doing her best to improve the position. Let us give our side a bit of a chance. It is not fair or right after three or four weeks to set out to pull them down, because they have not accomplished miracles. The Bill is going some part of the way to help us by getting more from the State instead of exercising borrowing powers. If we have that pledge, that no more borrowing will take place, we may take the
assurance that the point will be met. I welcome what the Minister has done in bringing in this small concession, and I am looking forward to a bigger Bill which will meet many of the requirements that we think ought to be met. If it does not, then will be the time to tell our people that they have fallen short of their pledges. At the moment, let us give them our confidence. Let us help them all we can. I thank the right hon. Lady for having done something.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): There is very little for me to add to this Debate, for the simple reason that Mr. Speaker has ruled out of order the points which the right hon. Lady the Minister, wished to raise. If I were to attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, I should at once be ruled out of order. It is worth while reminding the House of a fact which seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions, namely, that in this Bill we are laying down a principle which has been long contested with regard to the Unemployment Fund. The history of the contribution of one-third has been a varied one. When we have appeared to be on the point of getting the Exchequer to admit responsibility, somehow or other something has turned up, and we have failed to get what we wanted. On this occasion, the principle is definitely laid down in this Bill. Before we can deal with the things that hon. Members would like to see dealt with we have to come to this House owing to the bankrupt condition of the Fund. I think it is fair to say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who introduced the previous Measure are responsible for the present position. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that the events of 1926 were responsible for a great part of that debt. All that I can say about that is that the people of this country have had an opportunity of judging us on the events of 1926, and they are certainly under no misapprehension. There has been £34,000,000 taken away from the Fund during the past few years, the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which was severely contested by us when we were on the opposite benches, having, as has been pointed out by the Minister, taken £15,500,000 from it. I have no hesitation in saying that when the State contribution was reduced it was a dread-
ful thing so to deprive a Fund on which the poorest part of our population depends. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) raised the point that proper accounts ought to be published concerning the Insurance Fund. As a matter of fact, that is already done. I have in my hand the accounts of the Unemployment Fund published on 18th December of last year.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where I can find that account.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member will be able to obtain a copy of it from the Vote Office. Similar particulars are also published in the "Labour Gazette." I think that that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Friends behind have made some very passionate and sincere speeches. I come from one of the most hardly hit areas in this country. I do not think that my hon. Friends would say that because one has become a Minister he is less of a miner. The people that I represent are not only trusting the present Ministry, but they believe that the present Ministry will carry out their promises with regard to this Department and the administration of the Unemployment Fund. I have declared personally my willingness to submit myself to them on the result of this work in the execution of which I am so glad to be associated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to say, before we pass from the Second Reading of this Bill, that, as far as I and my colleagues are concerned, there has been no desire on our part to indulge in any carping criticism of the Ministry, and I want to resent very much the suggestion that there has been any carping criticism. The fact remains that the country has been looking for great things to happen with regard to Unemployment Insurance before we rise for the Summer Recess, and there has been no suggestion so far that there are going to be any such happenings.

An HON. MEMBER: Is that friendly criticism?

Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, it is friendly criticism; the friendly criticism of the people whom we represent.

An HON. MEMBER: Carping criticism!

Mr. STEPHEN: It would seem from the interruption of the hon. Member that the Government can depend upon him for a defence of that sort of policy. We have been looking for a change of policy. I do not think in dealing with the finance at the present time there has been a satisfactory treatment of the position as far as our people are concerned. It is true that we have been given to understand that there will be another Measure some time, but at the present time there is much hardship and suffering. Some time in the future you will have to take account of how long the Fund is going to run on the basis of the Acts from 1920 to 1927. We have to go on what appeared in the White Paper, which is very indefinite as to the future amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. When we had the Financial Resolution before us, I picked out one of the paragraphs in the Memorandum, because I thought it suggested that there was not to be so much of what has since been described as the humanising of the present administration. We were told that there Was nothing like that in the Memorandum at all, and therefore we have to look at the question on the basis of the facts which have been put before us.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that there has been this gain, that there has been definitely stated our adherence to the principle of the State contributing one-half of the total contributed by the employers and the employed. In the present state of the Fund, I do not think that that principle is of tremendous importance. Looking at the volume of unemployment at the present time and the possibility of unemployment in the months that are to come, I do not think that anyone, taking a survey of even two or three years from now, would say that we can get an unemployment insurance scheme on a satisfactory basis, so far as the workpeople are concerned, with the State contributing only one-half of the total amount contributed by employers and employed. We cannot, on the basis of one-half contributed by the State, provide anything like those benefits that have been put forward by Members of the Labour party as the minimum that should operate. Therefore, we have not gained very much by the assertion of the principle of a one-half contribution.
There is nothing in the Government's proposal which makes an essential difference to a single unemployed man or woman. Not one penny piece more will be paid to a man or woman because of this Measure. I think the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with that view. In this Measure they are simply taking into account the bankrupt condition of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and seeking to make this financial rearrangement. Does any one here suggest that if we do not pass this Bill that some time during the Recess we shall cease paying unemployment benefit to some people at the Exchanges? That would be an awkward position for the Ministry. Do not let anyone suggest that there will be more people getting benefit because we pass this Bill. We are simply making an alteration in the amount of the indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the State. If there is anything more in it, I shall be very glad to hear of it. When the Financial Resolution was before the House I said that it was a book-keeping business, and that is what it amounts to. If, as I hope may be the case, the Minister intends to come forward with a real Measure in accordance with the ideals and pledges of our party, then the policy which has produced the indebtedness will have to be scrapped.
Our pledges amount to a very much heavier expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. Our pledges, I calculate, would possibly mean the raising of the expenditure to somewhere about £85,000,000 per annum. That is what the people on these benches believe in. They believe in giving the people work or maintenance. That is what our party stands for. Consequently, it is a matter of supreme importance and it is imperative at this time that our people in the country, the unemployed men and women who are undergoing hardship, should have words of hope given to them. They should have an assurance that before the House rises for the Summer Recess there will be an improvement in their condition, and that this House of Commons will not be like the last House of Commons. Many Members of the last House of Commons are not in this House.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he is now going outside the Ruling laid down by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STEPHEN: I will not quarrel with the Ruling. Perhaps I was a little drawn by the cheers of hon. Members opposite at the suggestion that we were going to spend more money. There has been no wish on the part of hon. Members on these benches to indulge in any carping criticism in regard to the financial arrangements. All that we have been seeking is an opportunity to offer constructive suggestions for an improvement of the conditions, and I hope that before the House rises for the Summer Recess there will be an opportunity, by some means or other, whereby hon. Members will be able to contribute something towards a solution of this problem.

Mr. SIMMONS: I should like to know whether the Vote which is covered by this Bill will enable the Minister of Labour to repay to the Lord Mayor's Fund the sum of £45,000 which has been taken out of that Fund by her predecessor in aid of the transfer of labour scheme. If it is not possible to repay that money, I hope that no further calls will be made upon a charitable fund for the purpose of carrying out the work of a public Department. We ought to be told whether the Vote of money which this Bill covers will enable that matter to be dealt with in a satisfactory mariner. I do not think that any hon. Member would like to think that the fund—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise that matter. It does not arise on the question before the House.

Mr. SIMMONS: I want to know, and I think I am entitled to know, how the money will be disbursed, and whether the Vote will enable us to rectify the wrong that has been done and prevent a similar wrong from being perpetrated again. Unless I can say what the wrong is, it is difficult for the Minister to say whether it is covered by the Vote. The fact is, that £45,000 has been taken—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot raise that question.

Mr. SIMMONS: On a point of Order. I submit that we have a right to know what this money Bill covers, and whether any of the money will be used to repay a debt which was incurred by the predecessor of the present Minister. It was incurred for the purpose of helping the
transfer of miners, which I suggest should be a charge on the taxes of this country and not upon a charitable fund. I want that principle firmly established in this House, namely, that the working of the Departments shall not be dependant on grants from charitable funds, as has been the case under the previous Ministry where grants were made to transfer miners to wages of 18s. or with lodgings 14s.—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the administration of the Fund. All he is entitled to discuss is the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount. If I have to call him to order again I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. SIMMONS: I bow to your ruling, and I only want to know if the Fund will be adequate to enable that £45,000 to be repaid and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order!

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Miss Bond field.]

IRISH FREE STATE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I should like to ask one or two questions in regard to this Bill. In many ways it is a unique Bill. I do not think we have ever had a Bill of this type before. If to-day in China there were a House of Commons I could imagine a Bill of this type being brought up, because this is a Bill to save the faces of this country and the Irish Free State. Its history is to be found in the fact that certain Civil Servants, who were transferred in the Irish Free State, had certain grievances and they ultimately appealed to the Privy Council of this country, after five years of litigation and after winning their case twice in their own country. The Free State referred the matter to
the highest court of the realm, the Privy Council. Judgment was given against the Free State on this appeal, but the Government of this country and the Government in the Irish Free State put their heads together in order to try to nullify the effects of this decision. It would have been a matter of the gravest importance if the judgment of the Privy Council were to be annulled in that way by order of the House, and so, after various arguments and negotiations, it was referred for a second time to the Privy Council and on the second occasion again the Privy Council reaffirmed their decision in favour of the Civil Servants in the Irish Free State.
This Bill is to enable the Free State to pay these people, but Mr. Blythe has many times said he refuses to pay out one penny to these unfortunate people. I would not have supported this Bill had it not been a matter of the greatest importance for these poor people, who had appealed and who have been waiting for their money all these years, and that we were at last to come to their help and to pay what was justly their due. I am somewhat uneasy about the whole matter. This Bill to-day is to ratify the decision of the Privy Council, but I am afraid it is going to last only for this one particular occasion because we have got Mr. McGilligan talking openly in the Irish Free State—which under Article 66 of the Constitution had the right to appeal to the Privy Council—of introducing ad hoc legislation so that in future anyone who wants to appeal to the Privy Council will have their appeal quashed before they can appeal, and thus be prevented from appealing. This Bill is merely ratifying what may be the last appeal we may ever get from the Irish Free State to the Privy Council. After all, the right of appeal of any British subject to the King in Council is one of the most precious gifts of British citizenship, and it has been unchallenged in every other Dominion so far. Unfortunately to-day we see that, in the Free State legislation is likely to be attempted to nullify this one Article of the Treaty.

Mr. BROAD: On a point of Order. Are we in order in this House in discussing the internal affairs of the Irish Free State and the policy of its Government?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member has transgressed any of the Rules of the House.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I was simply dealing with matters connected with this Bill and the appeal to the Privy Council. What I am uneasy about is that we are passing this legislation in this House and there was to be complementary legislation in the Free State at the same time. What has happened is that the Dail has adjourned until 23rd October, so there is to be no legislation there before that date.

Mr. BROAD: On a point of Order. Are we entitled to discuss in this House the Adjournments and contemplated processes in the Irish Parliament?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As long as the hon. Member is discussing something relevant to the Bill—and so far I have not heard him transgress—he is quite in order.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I was simply pointing out to the House that there was to be complementary legislation, and this Bill says it should be carried out at the same time in the Dail as in this House, in order to enable these unfortunate civil servants to be paid the money due to them. I am somewhat uneasy that this has been put off until the late autumn. Under this Bill notice by a transferred officer of his desire to retire from the service of the Irish Free State in consequence of the change of Government, within the meaning of Article 10, may be given up to but not after 5th December, 1929. My point is that if legislation is being put off in the Irish Free State until late in the autumn, circumstances may arise in which the complementary legislation will not be carried out or may be carried out too late.
With regard to the statement that was made in this House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions the other day, I have had to-day a letter from a civil servant in Ireland on the matter in which he says:
One would infer from his remarks that everything was now satisactorily adjusted and that the transferred civil servants were satisfied with the progress of settlements. I can assure you, Sir, that such is very far from the truth. In fact transferred civil servants who are on retirement have abandoned hope of obtaining justice.
He goes on to say:
On the 11th instant the Act that will give legislative force to the agreement was adjourned to next October.
He goes on to talk about this as a breach of the understanding that there was to be legislation at the same date in both countries. There is one other point on which I should like to ask a question. In reply to a question the Under-Secretary stated that retirements were being rapidly dealt with and that something like 500 were outstanding. I am afraid he was grossly misinformed. Retirements were to be dealt with by a statutory committee to be established under the proposed Act. The Act is not passed, the Committee is not established and retirements are not being dealt with. I cannot reconcile this with the statement given me by the hon. Member and I should like to have these questions answered before the Bill is read a Second time.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think the House is entitled to an answer to one or two questions, which I may be allowed to put, before we pass this Measure. In the first Clause of the Bill certain sums are to be defrayed out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. I should like to inquire the approximate amount of the money which is to be paid under this Clause. What the immediate contribution is to be; and if it is to be paid in one lump sum or to extend over a considerable number of years? The House is perfectly entitled to know what commitments it is undertaking in this Bill. I am not in any way criticising the Measure. I am not saying it is a good or a bad settlement, an adequate or inadequate settlement, but as a general proceeding it is wrong for the House to pass any Measure until it is clearly told what the commitments are. The majority of these people to whom we are giving some form of pension have spent part of their time in the service of the Irish. Free State. What contribution, or proportion of contribution is being borne by the Irish Free State in this respect? If they have spent most of their time in giving service to the people in Ireland it is clear that some proportion of the pension should be paid from that source.
May I draw the attention of the House to the two long Schedules, one of which is signed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the other initialled by him. It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been taking a prominent part in these negotiations, and from what I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say on previous occasions I am amazed that he is not present to-night or some representative of the Treasury. No one was more punctilious in his respect for the House and in his insistence that where any Minister was directly concerned in any settlement he should be present in the House when the matter is being dealt with, and I really think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a representative of the Treasury should have been present on the Front Bench this evening. If the House is to be treated in this way there are other means of dealing with such a matter. I am very loth to move the Adjournment; I do not wish to make trouble for the new Government. Nevertheless, I think the House has some right to be informed by the Treasury where we stand, as this involves a very considerable sum which might go on running for a number of years. I did not intend in any way to arouse a controversial note in this discussion. I came here quite in a spirit of inquiry and with the idea that if we legislate in a hurry, as we do sometimes, it may be necessary to pass amending legislation. I should be very sorry if, after we have passed the Second Reading, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having gone into the matter a little further, told us that the Government had changed their mind, as they have done on one or two other matters. It is a fair request to ask that we should have an answer to these points, and in common courtesy there ought to have been a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) apparently could not restrain his hilarity at his own remarks.

Commander WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member really entitled to make such a statement and infer that I was not making a serious contribution to the Debate? Because I
do not happen to have a sour face is no reason why the hon. Member should assume that I was not perfectly serious in looking after the interests of the British taxpayer.

Mr. PONSONBY: I fully understand the seriousness of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford raised the whole question of the attitude of the Government of the Irish Free State towards appeals to the Privy Council. Obviously, I should be out of order if I replied to a question of that sort; even if I could. It is a technical and legal point. A Bill has been introduced into the Irish Free State Parliament, but that is quite irrelevant to this particular Motion. Here we are dealing with the judgment of the Privy Council, given twice, reversing the opinion held by the late Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Irish Free State Parliament; and the Bill and the Financial Resolution have been introduced in order to give effect to the decision of the Privy Council. The hon. and gallant Member raised the point of complementary legislation being introduced into the Irish Free State Parliament. It has been introduced, but the Irish Parliament has adjourned until the autumn when the further stages will be taken.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will anything be done in the meantime for these people? Payment is only to come into force after the last of these two Acts have been passed.

Mr. PONSONBY: Until the Board, which will deal with these claims, is set up cases will be held up. They will not have time to deal with the subsequent stages of the Bill in the Irish Free State Parliament until the autumn.

Mr. AMERY: Do I understand that all cases are held up or only those which come under the new tribunal? I was under the impression that the old cases, those who have already retired and in whose favour the Privy Council judgment stood, would receive what is due to them immediately and that the larger number of cases have already been dealt with. Surely that is the case. Surely those cases have not to wait for the legislation in the autumn?

Mr. PONSONBY: That is perfectly true. Those cases will not have to wait.
I think I was right in saying that there were 500 cases outstanding. I do not see that the letter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had received from one of the claimants really alters the case at all. There has been delay on account of the necessity of setting up different procedure for these special cases. That delay has been inevitable owing to the misunderstanding that arose. But I think we were bound as a Government to see that this agreement was made, and I do not think there is anyone opposite, judging by the tone of the late Secretary for the Dominions, who will share the somewhat critical attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman towards the Free State Parliament. This is merely a question of the British Government agreeing to an understanding and adopting a certain interpretation in order that these claims may be dealt with rapidly.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to my question about the financial position?

Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. and gallant Member was perhaps not here when the Financial Resolution was introduced. The amount involved is about £15,000.

Commander WILLIAMS: For how many years?

Mr. PONSONBY: That depends on possible future increases in the cost of living and bow long lives last. The amount of money involved is quite small.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient,—

(a) to authorise the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and on the recommendation of a committee to be appointed by the said Secretary of State subject to the approval of the Treasury, to make advances, either by way of grant or by way of loan, to the Governments of certain Colonies, territories under His Majesty's protec-
166
tion, and territories in respect or which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty, and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry in the Colonies or territories and thereby promoting commerce with or industry in the United Kingdom;
(b) for the purpose aforesaid to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) such sums not exceeding one million pounds in any one year as Parliament may from time to time determine; and
(ii) any expenses incurred by the said Secretary of State in connection with the committee aforesaid;
(c) to make certain provisions ancillary to the matters aforesaid;
(d) to provide for the extension of the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1900, so as to apply to stock to be hereafter issued forming part of the public debt of territories which are under His Majesty's protection or in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and to amend section eleven of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921;
(e) to amend the Palestine and East Africa. Loans Act, 1926."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not sure which Minister is in charge of this Resolution, but whoever he may be I ask him whether he can now answer a question which I put to the Lord Privy Seal on Friday with regard to the finance. The Committee on Friday showed, as was only natural, a unanimous bias in favour of the principles of this Resolution, which is apparently not only to aid the development of our Colonial Empire but to do something to help the unemployment problem in this country. Until we see the Bill we are not quite certain how the unemployment problem is to be helped, unless there is some proviso put in that a certain proportion if not all of the work which is to be undertaken in the Colonial Empire is to be given in this country. If it is merely a question of our guaranteeing loans and so forth to the Governments in various colonies, it is not quite clear how the people here are to be assisted. The Lord Privy Seal was unable to reply on Friday. He has since
had occasion to consult his colleagues, particularly the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is now present.
In the financial memorandum which accompanies the Resolution, it is made clear that there are two different kinds of expenditure foreshadowed. There is, first of all, a certain expenditure with regard to agricultural research and the development of various institutions for helping agriculture, health and the like; and in the second paragraph of the memorandum there is the guaranteeing of loans. Those two questions are entirely separate, from the financial point of view. With regard to the first I admit that in the Bill I may find the answer. I asked my question from the point of view of the Public Accounts Committee of this House. Since Friday I have had an opportunity of consulting some of the colleagues of my own party on that Committee as well as the hon. Member who as a Liberal served on it in the last Parliament. They agree with what I said on Friday, which was that, as in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee we made certain strictures with regard to the Empire Marketing Board's financial arrangements, we hoped that from the strictly accounting point of view the precedent which we did not consider a good one in the case of the Empire Marketing Board, would not be followed and made the basis of this new fund.
What makes us particularly anxious is the fact that the Lord Privy Seal on Friday pointed out that the Empire-Marketing Board was not a statutory body, but that the Committee which is to be set up under the Colonial Development Bill would be a statutory body and would form the basis of whatever reconstruction was in future decided on with regard to the Empire Marketing Board. In view of the fact that in the memorandum accompanying the Resolution it is stated that there are two sources of expenditure open to this new Committee, what is required is some arrangement in the Bill whereby the two kinds of expenditure are distinctly separated. It stands to reason that anything to do with the guaranteeing of interest on loans is a thing of which the House cannot have the intimate day to day knowledge to enable it to do the necessary checking.
As far as Trade Facilities and similar legislation is concerned, this House has, in the past, left these matters in the hands of a competent committee and abided by such a committee's decision, and I imagine that would apply to this Bill. It is on the other side—on the point about research and education and the rest of it—that what we said regarding the Empire Marketing Board ought to be made to apply to the Colonial Development Committees. The Empire Marketing Board was set up by the last Government, and obviously the finances of a scheme like that had to go through several years of experiment before critics could see any possible leakages from the taxpayer's point of view When we had considered it, we came to the unanimous conclusion, supported by hon. Gentlemen who are now on the Front Bench, that, from the House of Commons point of view—and, of course, it is not a party matter—it is very undesirable to vote, year by year, large sums to be spent entirely at the discretion of any Minister of any party, without the House having any say in the matter. We made certain recommendations, and the Select Committee on Estimates made similar recommendations. We thought there would be no difficulty in the future, once the position of that Fund had stabilised itself, in having detailed Estimates as to the lines on which it was expected to spend money in regard to education, research and the like. The House of Commons will no doubt be prepared to put in the hands o£ an independent committee such safeguards as are proper to the question of guaranteeing loans, but when it comes to expenditure which can be estimated from year to year, on education and research and such matters there should be some kind of detailed statement in the annual Estimates of either the Colonial Office or the Dominions Office. I hope it will be possible to have a considered reply on these points.

Mr. KELLY: I only rise to ask when the Bill will be available so that Members may have an opportunity of studying the various aspects of the Measure.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), when the Money Resolution was in Committee I tried to get some information on certain aspects of
this question which particularly interested me. If the hon. and gallant Member was unfortunate in not having his question answered, I was equally unfortunate in my efforts to extract some information as to the conditions under which these grants were to be made. I asked particularly whether any of the sums to be dispensed under the Resolution would find their way into the hands of private enterprise concerns, and from the Lord Privy Seal I got this reply:
The White Paper has been issued and it says nothing about private enterprise. It states very clearly that there shall be grants and loans to certain Governments for certain things including harbours and railways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1929, col. 1301, Vol. 229.]
The plain English of what the Lord Privy Seal said in his reply was that this money would not find its way into the hands of private enterprise concerns, but on looking again at the terms of the White Paper, I find this sentence:
Advances will be made to the Governments concerned, who may either use the money directly or re-issue it to any person or body of persons.
10.0 p.m.
To put it differently, there is nothing in the terms of the Resolution or the Memorandum which prevents any Colonial Government in receipt of a grant under the terms of the Financial Resolution from passing on that grant to private individuals or groups of private individuals in the Colony of that Government. In my opinion, this Resolution can be looked at from one or two points of view. It can be regarded either as a scheme for Colonial development or as an urgency measure designed to facilitate the solution of the unemployment problem at home. If it is to be considered solely as an Empire development scheme, I should offer the strongest possible opposition to State monies being so dispensed that they may go into the hands of private enterprise concerns without any condition being stipulated by this country. If it is to be treated, however, as a means of alleviating unemployment in this country, I think there are two comments to be made. One is the comment made by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Health in the Labour Government of 1924, in the speech which he made upon housing this afternoon and the other is this. Even granted that the necessities of the
unemployment situation impel the Government to make grants which will go into the hands of private enterprise, then those grants ought not to be unconditional. The matter arises now on a comparatively small sum of £1,000,000 a year, but later this week we shall be dealing with a similar Resolution under which much larger sums of public money will be issued from the Exchequer for the stimulation of various enterprises in this country.
It may be true that the necessities of the unemployment situation compel the Government to do a thing for which Labour Members attacked the late Government very severely during the last Parliament. I refer especially to the Debate which took place on the Government subsidy for the beet sugar industry, when the principle of handing out State money for the assistance of private enterprise was sharply attacked from Labour Benches in this House. Even if the circumstances of unemployment impel the Government to do something which would not normally be done, then I affirm that conditions ought to be attached to the issue of that money. I suggest that the first condition to be applied is that money shall not be invested in industries which may compete with corresponding industries here at home. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Zambesi Bridge!"] When I intervened in the discussion the other day, I was rebuked by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who told me that pretty well all the enterprises into which this money would go would be publicly owned enterprises, and he described this as practical Socialism. The hon. Gentleman opposite who interjects "The Zambesi Bridge" knows as well as I do that that scheme is one of the schemes which is not a publicly owned scheme, but into which, under the terms of this Resolution, British money may be put in the way of grants. I submit, secondly, that there should be attached to any grant or loans which are made from the public Exchequer conditions as to the labour conditions of the men who are going to be engaged on the schemes. The idea of a Government making grants without attaching conditions of that kind, either at home or abroad, does not commend itself to me as being a reasonable disposition of public funds.
It may be that all the points that I have mentioned, and those that were contributed to the discussion by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton), are already prominently in the Government's mind. If they are, then, with great respect, I think that some Front Bench representative ought to tell us what is in the Government's mind on those particular points. I tried the other day to put my case as fairly and as temperately as I could. I was told at the end that I was lecturing the House, and if that charge were true, I should be sorry. It is not my desire to lecture the House. It is my desire, however, legitimately to ask for information on points which seem to me to be material, and I hope that it will be possible for back benchers on this side of the House to put such questions temperately and respectfully without the assumption arising that they a/re necessarily in conflict with their own Front Bench or that they are trying to make difficulties for their own Front Bench. The Prime Minister appealed recently that we should regard ourselves as a Council of State. I assume that that invitation was not confined to the two front benches on the other side. It there is to be a Council of State, with great respect but with some firmness I claim my position in that Council of State, and I think it entitles me to ask for information on the points that have been brought out in these Debates.

Mr. REMER: When the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal introduced this Resolution on the Committee stage, he referred to the Empire Marketing Board and the Development Fund which is to be raised in connection with this Resolution. There has been a good deal of difficulty brought about, particularly in Lancashire and Cheshire, by the fact that the operations of the Empire Marketing Board in the past have been entirely confined to agricultural produce, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether, under this scheme, it is the intention of the Government to extend the operations of the Fund, so as to develop the sales of textiles and even of engineering products in our Colonies and Dominions. I hope the Government will go even further than that. I think it is very necessary to bring the products of our country within the purview of those who are potential buyers
in our Colonies and Dominions. I should like to see a far-reaching scheme brought forward whereby the goods which we manufacture here are brought prominently to the notice, through Government efforts, of people in the capital towns of our Dominions and Colonies. If I may use an illustration, we have a British Industries Fair here annually, to which we attract from overseas a few visitors—I mean a few, comparatively with those who are buyers. Would it not be possible, through the medium of this scheme, to have a miniature British Industries Fair in the capital towns of all our Dominions and Colonies, so that we could bring our goods more prominently to the notice of buyers in those countries?
There is one other item to which I want to refer, because I notice that in the Memorandum dealing with this Financial Resolution afforestation is mentioned. Afforestation is a very wide term, and I do not know whether by that is meant the planting of trees or the development and marketing of the trees which are already to be found in our Dominions. Perhaps I may be allowed, as one who has been closely connected with this matter in my own business, to say that I think there is a very great possibility of the development of our Empire forests which have not yet been touched. If we exclude India, with its teaks, West Africa, with mahogany, and the Canadian and Australian forests, there are many woods outside those which could be of great use. Perhaps we could follow the example of the United States Government in the Philippine Islands, where unknown woods have been brought into the market, which are being used to-day in the construction of railway wagons and such like, and have been passed by the railway clearing house in this country. I am quite sure there are woods in our own Empire which could be brought into use through this Development Fund. There are two things which are necessary. One is a continuous supply of these woods, and the other is that they shall be graded in such a way that they will be found of value to the users in this country. I hope the Under-Secretary will bring these matters before the notice of the Minister so that they can be of some help not only in developing the works of this
country, but in bringing about the development of our Empire in other directions.

Major SALMON: I entirely agree with the idea of finding money for colonial developments, but although we are asked to vote £1,000,000 we are, if I read the Memorandum correctly, committed for 10 years to that amount per annum. The House should, therefore, understand that our commitment is not merely £1,000,000, but may be £10,000,000. I hope that heed will be taken of the observations of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) with regard to the Public Accounts Committee recommendation. It is undesirable that large sums of money should be handed over to Ministries for them to dispose of as they think best, without Parliament having an opportunity of criticising the expenditure. I notice in the Memorandum that provision is made for experiments in the science and practice of the agricultural industry, and for the organisation of co-operation in the marking and grading of produce. Unless the attention of the House is called to these matters, there might be a great deal of overlapping between the Empire Marketing Board and the new Development Committee, and it is to be hoped that the Minister will take heed of the points that have been put forward this evening.

Mr. MANDER: After what was said on Friday and again to-day by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), I feel it my duty as Member for East Wolverhampton to rally to the support of the Government, and to assure them that they have a few friends left, even though they may not be on their side of the House. We on these benches seem to be the only united party in this House, and we are hoping that by a gradual process of absorption our numbers will be very largely increased. Reference has been made to the using of this money for the same purpose as that for which the Empire Marketing Board used the money voted to them. That Board has done excellent work, but they have scandalously wasted a great deal of the money allotted to them, and I want the Under-Secretary to assure us that none of this money will be used on expensive hoardings, posters and Press advertisements. If the precedent of the Board is going to be followed in that
respect, this proposal ought to be resisted. The money ought to be confined absolutely to essential purposes where it may be usefully employed.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Lunn): What we are discussing to-night is really the preliminary to a Bill which is to be introduced after the Money Resolution has been passed. I have been asked when the Bill will be obtainable. I believe that it is the custom of the House not to print a Bill until the Money Resolution has been passed, and if the Money Resolution is passed to-night, I think that I may safely say that the Bill will be obtainable to-morrow. The Second Reading is to be taken on Wednesday. With regard to the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), his first was one that was hardly to be expected from an hon. Member on that side of the House, and I question whether it would have been put three months ago. I refer to the question whether we would impose a condition upon the Colonies that they should make their purchases in all respects from this country. I do not know that that has ever been imposed in any legislation before. I remember that it has been discussed on many occasions with regard to the Dominions, and I know the resentment that there has been when we have sought to place such a Measure before them and ask for their support to it. With regard to the Colonies, it is hardly necessary, because without having the figures before mo I think I am safe in saying that 90 per cent. of their purchases are made from this country, and I am convinced that I could give an assurance to-night that the purchases made out of the money guaranteed under this Bill, if it becomes law, will be purchases from this country.

Mr. REMER: Will the purchases be made through the Crown Agents for the Colonies?

Mr. LUNN: I suppose they will be made in the ordinary way after full inquiries have been made by the expert committee—I think the ordinary course will be taken and that no new Department will be set up for this purpose. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find, if he looks through the accounts of the pur-
chases by the Colonies of which we have record, that they have been very loyal up to now in that respect.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think I was making any criticism of them. I only wanted to make sure that the previous practice would continue.

Mr. LUNN: Well, I would not like to say what I think about that. I would rather leave out my opinion on that matter. I am not to-night in a position to deal with the objects of the Bill, so I do not propose to go over the questions which were put to and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on a previous occasion. Most of the questions raised to-night were dealt with by him. I am not in a position to say what is to be the future of the Empire Marketing Board or its constitution, but I think I remember my right hon. Friend saying that it was going to be put on a statutory basis, and I sincerely hope and believe that after this Bill has been passed efforts will be made to prevent all overlapping between the Board and this Committee which is going to consider what schemes shall be supported out of the guarantee fund.
With regard to the question of the loans and how they are to be dealt with, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to leave that until the Second Reading of the Bill, when I will endeavour to see that his points are answered. As to the two hon. Members for Wolverhampton, one of them rather contradicts the other, as I have seen happen on many occasions in regard to representatives from the same town. One of them is very critical, while the other criticises only the posters. I think I may say there will be no provision for posters in the Bill. If the hon. Member criticises the Empire Marketing Board with regard to its advertisements, I should like to say in passing that there have been compliments from all over the country on the way the Empire Marketing Board are displaying posters and assisting the development of art on the hoardings.

Mr. MacLAREN: Who told you that?

Mr. LUNN: I would not set my opinion against that of my hon. Friend on this matter, but I do not always listen to experts upon matters of this kind.

Mr. MacLAREN: It is a pure waste of money.

Mr. LUNN: The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) has repeated the questions he asked on Friday as to whether guarantees will be given to schemes which may benefit private enterprise. I think he got an answer from the Lord Privy Seal on Friday. The Money Resolution provides and I think the Bill will provide that the guarantees are to be Government guarantees, but as long as private enterprise does exist this House will endeavour to develop trade and work for our people, even though it means developing private enterprise. In 1924 I was at the Overseas Trade Department of the Board of Trade, and at that time I was anxious to see work found by people engaged in private enterprise. I am a Socialist myself and if anybody on this side can suggest any means of providing work that policy would be much better than paying for people who are idle. I cannot say whether this proposal will encourage private enterprise or not, but if my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) will visit some of the colonies, as I have done, he will find that they are far more socialistic than many other parts of the world.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I have a reply to my question as to whether there will be conditions attached to these grants.

Mr. LUNN: On this question, I claim the indulgence of the House, and I do not think I should be expected to give a further reply than that given by a Cabinet Minister. I am not prepared to extend the answer which was given by the Lord Privy Seal and I will leave it there. The guarantees will be given to the governments concerned, and opportunities will be given later on to hon. Members who wish to raise these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton will have an opportunity later on of raising the question of labour conditions. Trade unions are not very strong in the Colonies, and there are not fair wages clauses in all parts of the world. This is a matter which will come largely under the Colonial Office and so far as I am concerned with these matters, I shall endeavour to see that the standard rate of labour and proper conditions obtain as far as possible. The hon. Member
for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) wanted to know if the Empire Marketing Board or the committee of experts was going to deal with the sale of textiles. I do not know that either of those bodies will deal with textiles, and consequently I cannot answer that particular question. I hope the House will now be prepared to agree with the report of this Money Resolution, and if hon. Members desire to raise a discussion upon the many points for which the guarantee is to be given in the Bill, I hope that discussion will take place on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: The Under-Secretary has not replied to the question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. LUNN: I have already stated that the Bill will not be printed until after the Report Stage of the Money Resolution has been agreed to. I think I can now safely say that the Bill will be available before the meeting of the House to-morrow.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Thomas, Sir Oswald Mosley, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Mr. Lunn.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.

"to authorise the making of advances for aiding and developing agriculture and industry in certain Colonies and Territories; to provide for the extension of the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1900, to stock forming part of the public debt of certain protected and mandated Territories; and to amend the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, and Section eleven of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Sir B. PETO: On Thursday last, I asked a question with regard to the continuation of the Rent Restrictions
Acts and, in particular, with regard to the operation of a provision which involves great hardship to the owners of single houses of which they have been waiting for years to obtain possession. That question was, when replied to, coupled up with three other questions bearing on different aspects of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and the reply of the Minister of Health was:
The future of the Rent Restrictions Acts is one of the matters which is engaging my attention. I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1929; col. 1067, Vol. 229.]
Let me say at once that, so early in the lifetime of the present Government, I should not, because it would be unreasonable, expect that they would be able to give me precise details with regard to what they propose in this matter of the continuation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, or, indeed, in many other matters which are vaguely outlined in their programme; but I think, in view of the fact that all over the country for at least nine years past a very large number of the most thrifty and praiseworthy of the poorer classes of the population, who have purchased houses for their own occupation, have been deprived of the use of those houses, and that they are naturally waiting, with the advent of a new Government, to know what view the Government take of this matter, and whether any hope is to be extended to them of ever getting possession of the houses which are their property, I might have received a more comprehensive answer, and at least some indication of what the Government's policy is.
Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that the first Rent Restrictions Act, which was passed in 1915, is called in its Title a "War Restrictions Act." It was passed as a War Measure, and yet, in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act, it says
No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate …. except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste …. or that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ ….
Therefore, when the Act was first passed, the fact that the house was required for the occupation of the original owner was
considered to be a sufficient reason for his getting possession. When the Act of 1920 was passed, a limitation was placed upon this right, for that Act provides that an order for the recovery of possession shall not be made unless:
The dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself …. and …. the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available.
It is this provision under which, in countless cases, owners of single houses purchased for their own occupation, while they have received the sympathy of the Court, have never been able to get possession of the houses which they purchased for their own use. When I put this question to the Minister of Health the other day, he said that it was one which might have been raised at any time for five years past. That is true, but it is equally true that it might have been raised at any time for nine years past.
On several occasions from year to year this Act of 1920 has been continued. It has been continued annually, and the class of people to whom I have referred have bought these small houses for their own occupation, in the confident anticipation—an anticipation which they were perfectly right in holding—that the Act would lapse, or at any rate would be amended or repealed. It is this provision, that they have to satisfy the Court that there is other accommodation equivalent as regards rent and suitability in other respects, which forms a bar to their ever getting possession of their own houses. It is obvious from the cases that have been brought to ray notice from all parts of the country, and even from parts of Scotland, since I first raised the question that there are very few friends of the small capitalist who will do anything for him in this House. Since I raised this question it has been constantly pointed out to me that the county council houses, built under the various building Acts, are almost invariably let at very much higher rents than those paid to these people for the houses they have bought for their own occupation. Therefore it comes to this, that the man or woman who owns his own house, and has bought it from the thrift and savings of a lifetime, is compelled
to pay in many cases more than double the rent that is paid by his tenant, for a council house, and in many cases the tenant is doing very good business in subletting part of the house, for which he is paying a far less rent than the actual owner has to pay for his accommodation.
I will give one or two examples of the cases to which I refer. The first I mention will perhaps be received with some sympathy by the Lord Privy Seal, who has been not unconnected with railway men in the course of his various duties outside the House. Here is a case of a railway man at Chester, nearly 60 years of age, employed by the. London and North Eastern Railway Company since 16 years of age. He bought a small house at Sheffield in November, 1920, after the Act to which I have referred was passed. He bought it with money he had struggled to save for that purpose. Thousands of houses have been built at Sheffield. The tenant makes no attempt to get one, and says he does not mean to. At present this man is living in a railway house, and when he becomes 60, as it is railway property, he will, have to give it up. He has beer careful and thrifty all his life, and is now to be homeless although he has bought the house in anticipation of precisely this eventuality. [Interruption.] He will certainly not get possession of any house at anything approaching the rent of the house he bought with his own money.
The second case I will mention may interest the Minister of Education. It is that of a school mistress who is near retiring, or just retired, and therefore during the greater part of her career she has been in receipt of a very much smaller salary than the Burnham Scale. In spite of that, she has saved enough to provide a small house for her old age, yet she finds she cannot get possession of it, although again it is a case of the result of a life's savings. I will call attention to another case because it shows that very often a family is penalised while the occupier of the house is a person who has no children at all. This is a small property inherited from the father. It includes a good, old-fashioned house of eight rooms and the present occupier has no children. The owner has three young children and is living in a small cottage. Council
houses of similar value are 16s. 4d. a week and the tenants of this man's house only pay 7s. 6d. a week. Here is another case from another part of Devonshire. It is at Exeter, where the tenant is paying 6s. 6d. a week for a six-roomed house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is it?"] The address is 18, Friars Walk, Exeter. I will not mention the name. The owner has to live in two rooms, paying 12s. 6d. a week, and two of his children have to go out to sleep. I could give the House a large number of other examples, but that, I think, is sufficient for my purpose.
Since I took up this question, as I told the House, I have had correspondence, and I am quite sure that the Minister of Health will have had plenty of correspondence on this subject also, from people all over the country. I want to point out that it is really a question of whether hon. Members opposite, and the Minister of Health in particular, agree with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that everything ought to be done to encourage thrift. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a speech to that effect within the last day or two. I want to know what form of thrift is more commendable and is a greater national asset than the thrift which results in a person saving during a great part of his life either through a building society or otherwise, and becoming the actual owner of the house in which he and his family want to live, and thereby making provision for his own old age.
I would point this out to the Minister of Health. He is very anxious that the Measure he proposed to the House to-day should increase the number of houses for letting. In the cases which I am putting to the House there is no question of additional houses at all. It is purely a question of whether the person who owns the house, who has saved his money in order to buy it, has a better right to live in it than anyone else. It does not make any more houses or any less houses. It is merely a question as to who has a right-to go into the house. I say that we are entitled in this new Parliament, and even at this period of it, to get some kind of indication from the Minister of Health as to what these people have a right to expect during the currency of the present Parliament. We do not know whether this Act is going to be extended from
year to year with or without Amendment. We do not know whether these people, who have been waiting for nine years to get into their own houses, will have to wait until the lifetime of the present Parliament is at an end, or not. If that is the position, it ought to be ended. The reason I am raising this question on the Adjournment to-night is that very shortly the House will be separating, and I do not want these people to be left in doubt and uncertainty, and, I would say, in mental misery, and in physical misery in many cases, for another long period of months without having an indication, if by pressing the matter on the Minister of Health I can possibly get some measure of hope that they will shortly be in a position to get the possession of the houses which they have bought.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have listened with great interest to the somewhat belated speech of the hon. Baronet. There have been a large number of occasions when he might have raised this question with hon. and right hon. Members who are in greater political sympathy with him than I am.

Sir B. PETO: May I point out that the sole reason why I have had this correspondence from all parts of the country is that I have raised this question during the last two or three years on several occasions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I observe that on the last occasion when this question was before the House the hon. Baronet did not speak. It was in 1927 that the Rent Restrictions Acts were last before this House. I have no doubt that if the hon. Baronet had cared he might have made occasions to raise the matter between 1927 and 1929. If my recollection serves me right, the hon. Baronet has been a Member of this House longer than I have, and he may have raised the question much earlier than the date when I entered the House. I am fully aware of the complications of rent restriction, and I would say to the hon. Baronet, for his reflection and contemplation, that there are two sides to this question. If the question is to be raised in all its aspects I should imagine that hon. Members opposite would be constrained to defend the present rents that are being charged for decontrolled houses. It is an unfortunate fact that while, on the one hand, the owner of a house is unable to obtain occupation, on the other
hand, a very large number of people have been driven, against their will, to occupy decontrolled houses and pay, not the rents to which he has referred, but rents which are double those of municipal houses.
I am glad that the hon. Baronet has raised this question. I regard it as a great compliment to the present Government. He is expecting me to solve in four weeks a problem which the late Government refused to solve in 4½ years. During the last 4½ years, the most pitiable appeals were made to the Government by hon. Members then sitting on this side of the House to deal with the hard cases under the Rent Restrictions Acts, but the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary at that time treated them either with levity or contumely. On no occasion did those hon. Members get any comfort. Why should the hon. Baronet, on the second occasion that I have had to address the House as Minister of Health, expect me to be in a position to come forward with a complete solution of the whole problem of rent restriction? I regard it as a compliment. I admit that, taking it all in all, those of us on this side of the House ought to be able to solve in four weeks what those on the other side have failed to solve in as many years.
The problem of rent restriction is inevitably connected with the problem of housing. The real problem about rent restriction to-day is the fact that there is a shortage of houses. That is why I say that to attempt to deal at this stage with the problem of rent restriction as a separate problem would bring to me more difficulties than the difficulties from which I should be likely to escape. I have no intention to-night of making any announcement in regard to what may happen within the next few months. It is true, as the hon. Baronet says, that within the next week or two the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess. I hope that it may be possible before the Recess arrives for me to make some kind of statement. I would put this point of view to the hon. Baronet. If I am faced, owing to Parliamentary time, with an alternative which involves a choice between a new Act of Parliament dealing with housing and a modification of rent restriction, I would rather face the oppo-
sition of hon. Members opposite on a new Bill than on the time that would be involved in getting the most meagre advance on the present rent restrictions. I am not saying that the present condition of the restricted houses is as good as one would like it to be, but I say that if it is possible to deal with this problem at some stage in the life of the present Government many toes would be trodden upon.
This vast and complicated question cannot be raised without raising a large number of issues which the former Minister of Health refused to face. All that I can say at the present moment—and I am entitled to claim this—is that I ought not to be called upon within a week or two of taking office to produce a cut-and-dried scheme to deal with the hard cases which have been brought to the notice of the hon. Baronet. I sympathise with those cases as fully as any hon. Member in the House, but I am fully conscious of the fact that rent restriction was imposed in this country because of a shortage of housing accommodation, and that whatever may be done by Amendment of the present Rent Restriction Acts to deal with the problem of those who are now living in houses which have been built for years, the major problem is not one which can be solved by juggling with the houses which are already built. The major problem is a substantial addition to the supply of new houses. As far as I am concerned, I would rather devote what time I may be in a position to occupy in this House to the larger problem than to the thorny question of restriction and the condition of the people who are living in houses under the Rent Restriction Acts.
I hope, however, it may be possible for me to make some statement—not one, I imagine, which will meet with wholehearted enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite now that they have lost their sense of responsibility, but one which, I hope, will meet the sense of the House. I hope that statement may be made before the House rises for the Recess, but, obviously, anything which may be done must be conditioned by the amount of legislation which will be before the House when we meet after the Summer Recess. There is in all Governments some order of priority, and obviously I cannot at this stage commit the Govern-
ment to any order of priority with regard to legislation, and particularly with regard to legislation affecting one side of a problem which is a very large problem and which may ultimately take up a considerable amount of the time of this House and of the Committees of the House after the House reassembles in the autumn. I am glad that the hon. Baronet has raised this question. I do not wish to deal with the merits of it, because I am prepared to admit the hardships that already exist and it would not be right, even if I were prepared to do so, at this stage to be provoked into any kind of statement of policy on an Adjournment Motion. That must come in its definite place and in its due time.
The previous Government in four and a half years, with opportunities which we may not possess, and with a majority which we do not enjoy, with an empty programme for a large proportion of its life, failed to devote themselves to this question, and I do not see why in its early days the present Government, which is dealing with large problems affecting the whole of our people here and overseas, should be called upon to make an announcement of policy on a matter which the late Government failed to deal with and upon which hon. Members opposite were unable to convince their own leaders as to the justice of their case. A thousand and one questions are involved and an ultimate solution depends not only upon a minor amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts, but on a large and generous scheme for new houses.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in the discharge of his office, in which we all wish him well, will not take it as any kind of personal affront every time he is asked to deal with one of the questions which the late Government failed to solve. After all, one of the reasons why he is sitting there, and why hon. Members behind him are sitting there is, because of the vast multitude of subjects which the last Government failed to solve, and we are looking with a certain amount of hope to the right hon. Gentleman in this and other matters. Here is a matter of the most genuine importance—I am not confining myself to the particular grievance raised by the hon. Baronet for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). It is a common fact that this question of rent restriction
is one which is puzzling everybody, including County Court Judges who have to administer it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned something about a new Act of Parliament. If he could find time to devote himself to that he will confer a great blessing on many of the poorest people in this country. At the present moment rent restriction legislation is so complicated that no one understands it. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said about time everyone will understand. The building of houses undoubtedly takes priority—everyone will agree with that. But I venture to say that however successful the housing programme of the present Government may be, and I hope it will be very successful, yet there is so much leeway to make up that rent restriction in some form or other will continue to be necessary in my humble judgment for a considerable time, and if that is so, it will be a great blessing if new legislation can be prepared to make the law on this subject something which is available and understandable by the common people.

Captain BOURNE: One question we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and that is, whether he intends to continue the Bent Restrictions Acts under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He has said that we on this side did not raise this question in the last Parliament, but I would remind him, as he well knows as an old Member of the House, that although we may raise this question and did so on many occasions, that we were perfectly unable to amend any Act brought in under that Bill. It is a matter of some importance to know whether he intends to bring this Act in under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already said that I hope to make a statement before the House rises for the Recess. The hon. and gallant Member must be satisfied with that. His question is not going to draw me to make that statement now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.